Was Jesus Only Human?

[shunyadragon]

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

Assertions based on faith and belief do not address the subject of the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

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 ?

The question of the existence of ancient historical figures is not an issue, because Jesus is acknowledged by far most historians to be a real figure in history. The question is the religious claims of Christianity concerning Jesus Christ. As far as other religious figures in history like Buddha and Lao Tzu there is no evidence during their life, but historians consider them real persons in history. Aristotle and Alexander the Great did not make any religious claims.

 

[Desert Snake]

Assertions based on faith and belief do not address the subject of the thread.

The question of the existence of ancient historical figures is not an issue, because Jesus is acknowledged by far most historians to be a real figure in history. The question is the religious claims of Christianity concerning Jesus Christ. As far as other religious figures in history like Buddha and Lao Tzu there is no evidence during their life, but historians consider them real persons in history. Aristotle and Alexander the Great did not make any religious claims.

These don't match.

 

[shunyadragon]

These don't match.

Not a coherent response. Your assertions concern your religious beliefs. My statements are simply in reference to historical reality of how historians consider the history of ancient persons. Based on the facts of history Jesus could have been 'only human.'

Still waiting . . .

 

[Desert Snake]

Not a coherent response. Your assertions concern your religious beliefs. My statements are simply in reference to historical reality of how historians consider the history of ancient persons. Based on the facts of history Jesus could have been 'only human.'

Still waiting . . .

No, you are assigning 'authority' to your speculations, which is nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, you are assigning 'authority' to your speculations, which is nonsense.

Incoherent response. I assign no authority to anything, and not speculations, just simply the facts of history that are acknowledged by historians concerning historical figures versus religious claims.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your speculations concerning my statements are a joke.

 

[Desert Snake]

Incoherent response. I assign no authority to anything, and not speculations, just simply the facts of history that are acknowledged by historians concerning historical figures versus religious claims.

No, those are your speculations as to what you consider 'truth'. They aren't truth, you don't even know the basics.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, those are your speculations as to what you consider 'truth'. They aren't truth, you don't even know the basics.

I do not make any claims of 'Truth'. That is what you do.

 

[shmogie]

The question of the existence of ancient historical figures is not an issue, because Jesus is acknowledged by far most historians to be a real figure in history. The question is the religious claims of Christianity concerning Jesus Christ. As far as other religious figures in history like Buddha and Lao Tzu there is no evidence during their life, but historians consider them real persons in history. Aristotle and Alexander the Great did not make any religious claims.

So what really is your point ? You don´t believe Christ was the manifestation of God, nor had the power to do miracles.
The history of them are the Gospels, so you find a way, you think, to deny their veracity.

So, your reasoning goes this way, miracles cannot occur/ the record of Christś miracles is faulty/ therefore Christ did not do miracles.

Pure and total bias. You cannot look at the matter objectively.

Please respond, are you a member of the B'hai faith ?

 

[shmogie]

Which manuscript are you referring to when you say 140?

Rylands MS, P52, 130 AD

 

[firedragon]

Rylands MS, P52, 130 AD

When you said "earliest are" I was wondering how many manuscripts you were speaking of.

Anyway, based on P52 fragment, you are saying that the original of P52 or the whole of Gospel of John was written 50 years after Jesus?

Whats the evidence?

 

[Spartan]

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.”

It's stunning that you give more credence to your "hypothetical" Q document than you do for the actual, traditional Gospels that are well attested to by the early church fathers.

Q is a myth. It's anything you guys want it to be. How long is it? How many chapters? How many verses? Who wrote it (no clue there either). And zero manuscript evidence.

Here's what you need to know about Q:

Fallacies at the Heart of Q: The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Ten Reasons to Question Q: The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One of the big ones is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes of some kind to be used later in their separate Gospels. But even that isn't necessary. John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. He's the PRIMARY source. Q is not necessary.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

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.

Just the opposite. There's actual compelling evidence for the traditional Gospel authors. See Post # 202: Was Jesus Only Human?

There's ZERO manuscript evidence for your Q, and yet you believe. That requires a much greater faith than believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[firedragon]

It's stunning that you give more credence to your "hypothetical" Q document than you do for the actual, traditional Gospels that are well attested to by the early church fathers.

Q is a myth. It's anything you guys want it to be. How long is it? How many chapters? How many verses? Who wrote it (no clue there either). And zero manuscript evidence.

Here's what you need to know about Q:

Fallacies at the Heart of Q: The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Ten Reasons to Question Q: The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One of the big ones is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes of some kind to be used later in their separate Gospels. But even that isn't necessary. John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. He's the PRIMARY source. Q is not necessary.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.



Just the opposite. There's actual compelling evidence for the traditional Gospel authors. See Post # 202: Was Jesus Only Human?

There's ZERO manuscript evidence for your Q, and yet you believe. That requires a much greater faith than believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

On what basis is Q identified? And how do you as a theologian deny it? Is it purely based on manuscript evidence or the lack of it?

 

[Spartan]

On what basis is Q identified? And how do you as a theologian deny it? Is it purely based on manuscript evidence or the lack of it?

Q is a myth. No one has ever seen Q. There's zero manuscript evidence for it.

See my post # 233 for more.

 

[shmogie]

When you said "earliest are" I was wondering how many manuscripts you were speaking of.

Anyway, based on P52 fragment, you are saying that the original of P52 or the whole of Gospel of John was written 50 years after Jesus?

Whats the evidence?

The Scrap itself. It is obviously a small fragment of a larger document, the Gospel of John. There is a fragment of the Gospel of Mark,P172, I think, dated 150 AD. There is no reason to believe, I think, that these two accurate fragments are representative of anything but the entire Gospel.

Further, there is an extant letter of Polycarp, who studied under an original student of John the Apostle, that confirms that John indeed did write his Gospel.

Evidence in the law is essentially broken down into two types, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Contrary to a million cop TV shows, circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence.

The circumstantial evidence, for those that require it, is building in favor of the Apostles authorship of the Gospels, within a lifetime from the ascension of Christ.

 

[sojourner]

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.

No, I didn't say that the text, itself was prior to 50 CE. I said (or at least meant to say) that the source for Thomas is earlier than 50 CE. That may be where the confusion lies.

 

[sojourner]

Q is a myth. No one has ever seen Q. There's zero manuscript evidence for it.

See my post # 233 for more.

Wrong. There is manuscript evidence for it; that's where the hypothesis comes from: the textual evidence for it.

 

[Spartan]

Wrong. There is manuscript evidence for it; that's where the hypothesis comes from: the textual evidence for it.

Show me the manuscript evidence for Q.

 

[firedragon]

The Scrap itself. It is obviously a small fragment of a larger document, the Gospel of John. There is a fragment of the Gospel of Mark,P172, I think, dated 150 AD. There is no reason to believe, I think, that these two accurate fragments are representative of anything but the entire Gospel.

You got me wrong brother. I am not doubting the entire manuscript existed just because the earliest manuscript is a small fragment and P52 is the most passionately loved manuscript for any human being. No doubt.

I have never heard of a Mark manuscript so early, I have never heard of P172. As far as I know there is nothing else dated to 150 AD. If you are referring to 137 I believe its late 2nd or early 3rd centuries AD.

Anyway, bottomline is, the existence of a fragment means the book in its entirety existed earlier. Maybe we can debate the text and its variations but that doesn't mean the book in its entirety didnt exist. I definitely didnt mean that.

Further, there is an extant letter of Polycarp, who studied under an original student of John the Apostle, that confirms that John indeed did write his Gospel.

I dont agree with that brother. The epistle to phillipians if that is what you are referring to does not state "John indeed did write his Gospel".

Anyway, my question is, whats the evidence that John was written 50 years after Jesus? Generally it is accepted that its written somewhere around 70 years after Jesus.