Was Jesus Only Human?

[shmogie]

You describe third hand knowledge at best. The church fathers that compiled the NT had no first hand knowledge of the apostles. They are their books in their language.

Not true. The NT was compiled from source documents written in Koine Greek, a common language throughout the ancient world. These source documents, copies of what the Apostles wrote, were written within 50 years of the events, perhaps earlier. Pieces of the written Gospels may be found confirming an earlier date. Right now the earliest are circa 140 AD

Do you believe Aristotle existed and his history, and writings are known ? How do you know ? Are there any documents extant that were written during his life ? How close in time to his life are the extant documents ?

In comparison, the Gospels are closer in time and and time, and many, many more copies.

There is a difference between compilation and writing. The selection of the books to include in the canon is compilation. The compilers first hand knowledge of the Apostles is irrelevant. What they compiled were documents written by the Apostles.

 

[Spartan]

First, there’s no evidence to show that the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. None of the narrators makes use of “we” language. Second, all evidence points to later writing by anonymous writers. Third, writing was extremely rare in that time and place. There’s no reason to suspect that the disciples in question were literate. Fourth, even had the written stuff down, it would not have been on parchment. Parchment was prohibitively expensive and was used only by kings and the Empire for legal notices. Fifth, John isn’t a synoptic. Q doesn’t appear in John. Seventh, the process of literary criticism does not, by definition, take the supernatural into account. Criticism is evidentiary in nature, and there’s no evidence for the supernatural. That’s why it’s “supernatural.”

Q is fictitious - zero manuscript evidence for it. Matthew was a tax collector so he definitely was literate. Mark also, as a scribe for Peter. Luke was a physician so he was also literate. John, no evidence he wasn't literate.

The Gospel writers are known and are NOT anonymous.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel


Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel


Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel


John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

 

[Spartan]

Says one who makes some of the least convincing posts on this forum.

You're a theological novice, which is why you're always confused on the issues.

 

[JJ50]

You're a theological novice, which is why you're always confused on the issues.

You are no theologian if your posts are anything to go by.

 

[Spartan]

You are no theologian if your posts are anything to go by.

You have no formal theological education. I do. So go study up.

 

[JJ50]

You have no formal theological education. I do. So go study up.

Well if that is the case you didn't do very well then, as your posts show no sort of educational prowess.

 

[shmogie]

Well if that is the case you didn't do very well then, as your posts show no sort of educational prowess.

You think yours do ?

 

[shunyadragon]

A dozen NT writers proclaim Jesus Christ’s resurrection for the justification of believers. Other than your anti-miracles bias, why should I reject a dozen writers shown accurate and prescient about everything from human nature to the rise of modern Israel, for your philosophical opinion slandering them as liars and/or lunatics, who sit in a comfy armchair and criticize them, in a nation founded on their principles?

Nothing during the lifetime of Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Pre'existant Jesu God, form of the Lord, was never, and is never, "only human".

The Lord can never be 'only human', in other words.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you want to correlate this to the new testament, then Matthew 1:22-26.

That being said, these are texts, not the basis of the religion, in other words, Jesu God is the basis of this theism, the bible can be a parallel.
•

Like many christians and ex christians, if one does not have a connection to this religion outside the texts, or the pastor tells you, you may not understand this, and perhaps it isn't your religion.

 

[Desert Snake]

The sacrifice isn't for everyone, it's a conditional spiritual sacrifice, only for believers. And even then, there are rules.

 

[Desert Snake]

Concerning an incarnation

Nestorian and some asiatic:
[human||g-d]

Thusly two different natures, in one 'person', or human

Incarnation literal:
Human form Jesus is basically godlike, in human form. (Does miraculous things while on earth, etc. This is clearly very literal to the Bible.

Non human form as physicality:
Jesus is never actually human in any way, just appears , so forth. Also can be argued

 

[Desert Snake]

John 10
John 10:17
John 10:18
[ JESUS says He raises Himself, therefore God, and says He does this of Himself, so forth.
In the Greek, it's more likely Jesus is calling Himself the pater, or father, here, the Shepherd. This is clearly not 'fully human', it's God, talking.
•
So, what about the verses where you have Jesus saying 'my g-d'? Yes it's weird. It's basically a contradiction, unless there are two g-ds, which can't be, since Jesus raises Jesus, [bible, and, God raises Jesus[bible

 

[shunyadragon]

Pre'existant Jesu God, form of the Lord, was never, and is never, "only human".

The Lord can never be 'only human', in other words.

A statement of your belief, fine, does not preclude the fact that Jesus may be 'only human.'

 

[Desert Snake]

A statement of your belief, fine, does not preclude the fact that Jesus may be 'only human.'

Of course I'm going to answer from my perspective.

 

[shmogie]

Nothing during the lifetime of Jesu.

Relatively soon after his death and resurrection though.

The ¨not during His lifetime¨ bird won´t fly.

It is obvious from the Gospels that the Apostles didn´t even have a clear understanding of what was going on till after the crucifixion and resurrection.

So, your observation re His ¨lifetime¨ is irrelevant.

 

[shunyadragon]

Relatively soon after his death and resurrection though.

The¨not during His lifetime¨ bird won´t fly.

Flys very well, because it is a fact that there is mot even a trace of evidence of Jesus Christ during his life time.'
v

It is obvious from the Gospels that the Apostles didn´t even have a clear understanding of what was going on till after the crucifixion and resurrection.

So, your observation re His ¨lifetime¨ is irrelevant.

Very relevant, because there is absolutely no record of Jesus, nor the miraculous events and claims during his life.

 

[sojourner]

Q is fictitious - zero manuscript evidence for it. Matthew was a tax collector so he definitely was literate. Mark also, as a scribe for Peter. Luke was a physician so he was also literate. John, no evidence he wasn't literate.

The Gospel writers are known and are NOT anonymous.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel


Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel


Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel


John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

Sorry; not buying this. Q may be hypothetical, but it’s not fictitious; there is a whole body of work that Matt and Lk share in common. Just because a separate manuscript isn’t extant does not mean that there is “0 textual evidence.”

There is no reason to believe that the people to whom the Gospels are later attributed were the actual authors. The evidence against it is compelling.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry; not buying this. Q may be hypothetical, but it’s not fictitious; there is a whole body of work that Matt and Lk share in common. Just because a separate manuscript isn’t extant does not mean that there is “0 textual evidence.”

There is no reason to believe that the people to whom the Gospels are later attributed were the actual authors. The evidence against it is compelling.

I put the Gospel of Thomas on equal terms with the canon gospels, but nothing supporting text before 50 AD. Paul is not a witness to the life of Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Not true. The NT was compiled from source documents written in Koine Greek, a common language throughout the ancient world. These source documents, copies of what the Apostles wrote, were written within 50 years of the events, perhaps earlier. Pieces of the written Gospels may be found confirming an earlier date. Right now the earliest are circa 140 AD

Do you believe Aristotle existed and his history, and writings are known ? How do you know ? Are there any documents extant that were written during his life ? How close in time to his life are the extant documents ?

In comparison, the Gospels are closer in time and and time, and many, many more copies.

There is a difference between compilation and writing. The selection of the books to include in the canon is compilation. The compilers first hand knowledge of the Apostles is irrelevant. What they compiled were documents written by the Apostles.

Which manuscript are you referring to when you say 140?