Is Jesus God?

[outhouse]

You are just riding along with people’s idea like a parasite living at the expense of others.

Im sorry you cannot prove the Galilean was god.

Its not my fault you don't understand the first thing about rhetorical prose, or mythology and allegory or metaphor.

Its not my fault you don't know what is being taught in different universities, and that you denounce this knowledge professors provide.

 

[outhouse]

my goal to embarrass you or to harm your credibility.

He/she is going a fine job all on their own.


I think your doing just fine, and have been more then reasonable.

 

[outhouse]

The Romans can call their emperor anything they want, it doesn't make it true.

But it was these same people that called Jesus divine.

That takes us back to the 4 questions as to whether or not a real parallel exists.

Lets look at the historicity of the sermon on the mount, or valley floor? Where did it happen?

Odds are it never happened. It is a collection of parables that differ from one book to the next. As the location differs from one book to the next.

The whole thing is large crowds could not hear these important words. But the authors are rhetorically placing him in front or large crowds just like the Emperor did speaking in an amphitheater.

Aramaic Peasant communities in Galilee were in a struggle for survival. They could not just drop their work that fed their family to go off and hear a teacher no matter how popular he was.

Large crowds were also perceived as a threat or military gathering. Its what got John killed.

I don't understand the question. Jesus was not "given" divinity.

Sure he was and the gospels all differ on when.

Birth or baptism or crucifixion.

Hell the church fathers argued this for centuries before his divinity was defined on paper in what amounts to a court hearing, as Constantine demanded unity no matter how he was defined.

 

[kepha31]

But it was these same people that called Jesus divine.

I may be mistaken but you seem to be saying the pagan Romans called Jesus divine. How this jives with a Roman Proculator sending Him off to be crucified doesn't much sense. On the other hand, the chronology of your questions is all over the map, and I am really trying to answer you.

Lets look at the historicity of the sermon on the mount, or valley floor? Where did it happen?

It took place in both locations, because probably Jesus, like other popular speakers on religion even in our day, repeated similar stuff to different audiences. The Written Tradition was never intended to be a geography book. Some scholars say Karn Hattin. Exactly where is not important. What He said is important. If you want a scholarly paper on "where", see CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mount of Beatitudes

Odds are it never happened.

Blind disbelief.

It is a collection of parables that differ from one book to the next.

How does that matter? Different people writing in different styles hearing similar teachings that were not dictated in exact word-for-word format, yet still no contradictions. That's rather remarkable.

As the location differs from one book to the next.

So what?

The whole thing is large crowds could not hear these important words.

Why do you think Jesus stood on an elevated place? Or in a boat?

But the authors are rhetorically placing him in front or large crowds just like the Emperor did speaking in an amphitheater.

Your conclusion does not follow the premise:

The Emperor spoke to large crowds in an ampitheater.
Jesus spoke to large crowds.
Therefore Jesus is like the Emperor.

You have legs.
Monkeys have legs.
Therefore you are a monkey.

The only way to support your non-sequitur is a flat out denial of the science of history. What puzzles me is why you accept the history of the Emperors and reject the history of Jesus of which the evidence is in far greater abundance, even without the Bible.

Aramaic Peasant communities in Galilee were in a struggle for survival. They could not just drop their work that fed their family to go off and hear a teacher no matter how popular he was.

You see their situation, but fail to see their motivation. They were hungry for more than food, and it was worth the trip. Besides, He fed them at times, not just to fill their stomachs but to foreshadow his power to multiply His Body for the life of the world.

Sure he was and the gospels all differ on when.
Birth or baptism or crucifixion.

No, they don't.

Hell the church fathers argued this for centuries before his divinity was defined on paper in what amounts to a court hearing, as Constantine demanded unity no matter how he was defined.

Wrong. The Church Fathers affirmed and clarified what the Apostles taught. Constantine had TEMPORAL authority seeking a solution to a RELIGIOUS problem that spilled out into the TEMPORAL sphere. The Arians were wrecking havoc on the social order. Constantine had no authority to convene a council, that's why he collaborated with the Pope to have one. Constantine had NO SAY in it's deliberations, because he had no SPIRITUAL authority, contrary to the psychotic ramblings of funnymentalists.

BTW, Arius used private interpretation of the Bible to justify his heresies, and was refuted by Anasthasius who used the CHURCH'S understanding of the Bible.
a good description of what went on at the Council of Nicae:
"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths

 

[outhouse]

I may be mistaken but you seem to be saying the pagan Romans called Jesus divine. How this jives with a Roman Proculator sending Him off to be crucified doesn't much sense

Causing trouble in the temple, and having an Aramaic Jew crucified for it is one thing.


Hellenist/Romans worshipping the legends after his martyrdom that grew after his death, then writing about when the temple fell. Is another.

 

[outhouse]

It took place in both locations,

No, it probably never happened.

If the unknown authors of each book Matthew and Luke actually witnessed Jesus, they would not have to have copied marks gospel.

And he would not have been in front of large crowds, less Passover.

And the parables loose all meaning being read one after the other. They were supposed to be read and digested one by one.


These are collections of saying redacted into each gospels compilation.

 

[outhouse]

The Emperor spoke to large crowds in an ampitheater.
Jesus spoke to large crowds.
Therefore Jesus is like the Emperor.

No.

The Emperor spoke to large crowds.

Jesus did not speak to large crowds, the unknown authors mirrored the emperors divinity having Jesus doing the same thing.

This is classical rhetorical prose these authors were trained in.

 

[outhouse]

What puzzles me is why you accept the history of the Emperors and reject the history of Jesus

You have no idea what I think, believe or know.

I happen to fight for Jesus historicity.


Not once have I stated against his REAL historicity.


If you would like I can point you to credible links for universities that can help you on the NT.

Biblical Jesus is not Historical Jesus. There was a real Galilean who learned under John. Do you even know what Jesus first name really was?

 

[Kolibri]

If the unknown authors of each book Matthew and Luke actually witnessed Jesus, they would not have to have copied marks gospel.

Matthew was written before Mark.
Mathew 27:8 and 28:15 indicate a lapse of some time between the events recorded and the writing, but it does not have to be excessively long.
Subscriptions in numerous manuscripts point to the 8th year after Christ's ascension, which if true would point to about 41 C.E.
Of all the 27 books in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis, of the 2nd century as stating: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)
Jerome also pointed to Matthew having "composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed....Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to thsi day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected." - De viris inlustribus, chapter III, translated from the Latin text and edited by E.C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8,9.

It seems likely then that Matthew personally translated his gospel into common Greek after compiling it in Hebrew first.
Over 40% of Matthews account is not found in any of the other 3 Gospels.

At the testimony of such early writers as Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome, the Gospel of Mark was first made public in Rome. Mark was in Rome during Paul's first imprisonment there. (Col 4:10; Phm 1,23,24) Thereafter he was with Peter in Babylon. (1Pe 5:13). Then after that, during Paul's second imprisonment in Rome, Mark was requested to come see him. (2 Timothy 4:11). As no mention is made of the fulfillment of Jesus prophesy on Jerusalem, this points to a date as early as 60 C.E. and likely no later that 65 C.E as the time of writing.

Luke too is likely written before Mark. As to him being the writer, evidence to this goes back as early as the Muratorian Fragment of about 170 C.E. The vocabulary and the descriptions of afflictions in the book also are more specific than the other gospels pointing to someone educated as a physician. Luke had an opportunity to interview eyewitnesses and consult written records when he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem at the end of his third missionary circuit (Act 21:15-17) Since the gospel was completed before the writing of the book of Acts (Acts 1:1,2), it seems reasonable to conclude that the Gospel may have been written at Caesarea sometime during Paul's 2 year incarceration there. That would place the time of writing at about 56-58 C.E.

 

[oae]

yes.

 

[outhouse]

Matthew was written before Mark

Luke too is likely written before Mark

Im sorry but most educated people claim your in error. You should not comment on things you know nothing about.

The current status is the both M and L copied Marks book.

Its called marcan priority.

The Priority of Mark

Great site, lots for you to read. see you in a few years.


Marcan priority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory,

 

[outhouse]

It seems likely then that Matthew personally translated his gospel into common Greek after compiling it in Hebrew first.

You need to quit commenting on things you know nothing about.

There is no evidence for any early Hebrew text. Its why you have nothing to back up your apologetic position.

 

[Kolibri]

Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory,

from your wiki link:

Marcan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first-written of the three Synoptic Gospels and was used as a source by the other two, Matthew and Luke. This hypothesis is a central one in discussion of the Synoptic Problem, the question of the documentary relationship among these three Gospels.

Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory, although a number of scholars support different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether.[1][2]

From this I see the word "hypothesis", and "a number of scholars....reject it altogether."

Great site, lots for you to read. see you in a few years.

thank-you for my daily dose of observed huberous.

 

[outhouse]

From this I see the word "hypothesis",

So what, some people believe in a flat earth and try and denounce the facts of evolution.

Doesn't change this

Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars

 

[outhouse]

thank-you for my daily dose of observed huberous.

Again, you need to know what your even debating before you start punching a key board.

Posting with no education or knowledge on a subject is not how you debate it.

People go to universities for knowledge, because bible cannot compete.

Your no one to talk down to Peter Kirby, or his work.

 

[JM2C]

I think you already know, and I'm not sure why you're asking, but whatever. LDS = Latter-day Saints. Christ's followers in biblical times were referred to as "saints." Since we believe we are living in the "latter-days" now, we call ourselves "Latter-day Saints."

There is a cult in the Philippines called “the church of Christ” or “Iglesia ni Cristo” and called themselves Christians or followers of Christ also.

What they did was changed or altered or forged, like all other cults, Acts 20:28 “the church of God” to “the church of Christ” and teach people that their church, the church of Christ/Iglesia ni Cristo, are the one Paul was saying in Acts 20:28 and therefore, the true church of God, but nowhere in the bible do we find the “church of Christ” except in Romans 16:16 “all the churches of Christ” referring to the existing churches at that time frame, unless they were around already at that time.

Now, where did they get this translation from so they could justify that their church was the true church of God? The Lamsa bible where it says: “Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed your overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood." - Acts 20:28 (Lamsa version)

Their teachings are no different from your/lds teachings, and from jw/nwt teachings, to Muhammad and all those Unitarians teachings as far as John 1:1 is concern. They just have different names but the same teachings and all were denying the true deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God or “the Word was God”.

All these cults must agree with each other or they are NOT divided when it comes to the true deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., “and the Word was God”. “If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!” –Mark 3:26

In Hebrews chapter 1 it says, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, -Hebrews 1:1”

Here in verse 1 the author was talking about the OT and if you notice that it was God who spoke to all the authors/prophets of the OT, i.e., from Moses all the way to John the Baptist. “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. –Matthew 11:13”

Now, who prophesied after John the Baptist? “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world [cf. John 1:3]. –Hebrews 1:2”.

Here the author was talking about the NT or the LAST revelation of God to mankind.

Now, if you examine carefully, one of the basic components of any of these cults, their leaders all have some kind of special, exclusive or absolute revelation from God, especially the mormons, muslims, jw, iglesia ni cristo and even the rcc, or post-revelation from God or post-enlightenment.

The Lord Jesus Christ said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” – John 14:6.

None of these cults believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father because of this “SPECIAL, EXCLUSIVE, and ABSOLUTE, REVELATION” that they have received from God. They all have this concocted, fabricated, formulated revelation from God after the New Testament or “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. –Hebrews 1:2”.

And in addition to these, all these cults do not believe in the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the Trinity, or the ministry of the Holy Spirit on which all True Christians today are under His guidance. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; John 14:16”

 

[JM2C]

JM2C


I apologize for any embarrassment you may have felt in the discussion. It was NOT my goal to embarrass you or to harm your credibility.


However, the readers are able to make up their own minds regarding the translation of John 1:1, given the data we exposed them to. I am quite comfortable with that. To simply turn a coherent discussion into a petty sniping harangue will not be of any benefit.


If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of our discussion regarding John 1:1, it will not matter. The horse is dead; the train has left the station, the ship has sailed, etc.


Clear

τςφιτζδρω

I answered all your questions and asked you questions on which you cannot keep up with the right answer. Pretending to know Greek or know how to read and write Greek but can’t tell the difference between Ancient Classical Greek and Koine Greek is really embarrassing. You stop responding to my questions so could avoid being embarrass by your lack of knowledge on things you really have no knowledge at all just like all those jw out there.

 

[Katzpur]

There is a cult in the Philippines called “the church of Christ” or “Iglesia ni Cristo” and called themselves Christians or followers of Christ also.

What they did was changed or altered or forged, like all other cults, Acts 20:28 “the church of God” to “the church of Christ” and teach people that their church, the church of Christ/Iglesia ni Cristo, are the one Paul was saying in Acts 20:28 and therefore, the true church of God, but nowhere in the bible do we find the “church of Christ” except in Romans 16:16 “all the churches of Christ” referring to the existing churches at that time frame, unless they were around already at that time.

Now, where did they get this translation from so they could justify that their church was the true church of God? The Lamsa bible where it says: “Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed your overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood." - Acts 20:28 (Lamsa version)

Their teachings are no different from your/lds teachings, and from jw/nwt teachings, to Muhammad and all those Unitarians teachings as far as John 1:1 is concern. They just have different names but the same teachings and all were denying the true deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God or “the Word was God”.

All these cults must agree with each other or they are NOT divided when it comes to the true deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., “and the Word was God”. “If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!” –Mark 3:26

In Hebrews chapter 1 it says, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, -Hebrews 1:1”

Here in verse 1 the author was talking about the OT and if you notice that it was God who spoke to all the authors/prophets of the OT, i.e., from Moses all the way to John the Baptist. “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. –Matthew 11:13”

Now, who prophesied after John the Baptist? “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world [cf. John 1:3]. –Hebrews 1:2”.

Here the author was talking about the NT or the LAST revelation of God to mankind.

Now, if you examine carefully, one of the basic components of any of these cults, their leaders all have some kind of special, exclusive or absolute revelation from God, especially the mormons, muslims, jw, iglesia ni cristo and even the rcc, or post-revelation from God or post-enlightenment.

The Lord Jesus Christ said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” – John 14:6.

None of these cults believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father because of this “SPECIAL, EXCLUSIVE, and ABSOLUTE, REVELATION” that they have received from God. They all have this concocted, fabricated, formulated revelation from God after the New Testament or “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. –Hebrews 1:2”.

And in addition to these, all these cults do not believe in the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the Trinity, or the ministry of the Holy Spirit on which all True Christians today are under His guidance. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; John 14:16”

Why go to all the trouble of describing some random denomination in the Philippines with whom you disagree? You've proven absolutely nothing except that they don't interpret certain scriptures the way you do. Well, I have news for you... There are over 40,000 different Christian denominations in the world today and no two agree on every point of doctrine. That does not mean that you picked the right one and everybody else picked a cult. A cult is nothing more to you than the church down the street from your that you don't like. You ought to ashamed of your judgmental attitude, but I'm sure you're not. Holier-than-thou people seldom see themselves the way the rest of the world sees them.

P.S. You're off-topic. The topic is "Is Jesus God?" It's not, "Which churches are cults?"

 

[JM2C]

Im sorry you cannot prove the Galilean was god.


Its not my fault you don't understand the first thing about rhetorical prose, or mythology and allegory or metaphor.


Its not my fault you don't know what is being taught in different universities, and that you denounce this knowledge professors provide.

Would you debate anyone here just from bible alone or the text and the context of what was written in the bible only? If you can’t then you are in the wrong place. Go to "How certain are we that Jesus was historical" and prove yourself there if you can.

How many times I have to cut and paste this

There is plenty of evidence in the NT for Jesus divinity. Just because the trinity slowly evolved hundreds of years later, does not mean there is no evidence in support.

But now you are questioning or contradicting your own statement by saying

Im sorry you cannot prove the Galilean was god.

Do you understand this?

 

[JM2C]

Why go to all the trouble of describing some random denomination in the Philippines with whom you disagree? You've proven absolutely nothing except that they don't interpret certain scriptures the way you do. Well, I have news for you... There are over 40,000 different Christian denominations in the world today and no two agree on every point of doctrine. That does not mean that you picked the right one and everybody else picked a cult. A cult is nothing more to you than the church down the street from your that you don't like. You ought to ashamed of your judgmental attitude, but I'm sure you're not. Holier-than-thou people seldom see themselves the way the rest of the world sees them.

P.S. You're off-topic. The topic is "Is Jesus God?" It's not, "Which churches are cults?"

I’m aware of the title of this thread. It’s “Is Jesus God?”. We could always start in John 1:1 if you want so that we could see who belongs to God and who belongs to the devil.