Was Jesus Only Human?

[Desert Snake]

Was Jesus human? Yes. That was easy.

The Spirit of the Lord, no matter how human Jesua was, was the persona, or rather is the persona.

Therefore, no, your answer does not work. It is speculation, hence why you can't justify your ex faith.

Should pay attention to spiritual matters, and less to academic hacks.

 

[sojourner]

That's a theory that Q is embedded in Matthew and Luke. You can believe that but I don't share it.

Your loss.

 

[Spartan]

Your loss.

Not a chance.

 

[shunyadragon]

You can have your late-dating, anti-supernatural, anti-deity of Jesus, and revisionist liberal theologians. If they had any real spiritual understanding they'd be conservative theologians, who endorse the traditional gospel authors, the resurrection of Jesus, the reality of the Holy Spirit - who is also God, and other traditional beliefs. As for liberal theologians having the "dominate academic view" that the traditional gospel authors didn't write their gospels, where's your poll on that being the dominate understanding of all theologians? That's only the view among liberals, who screw up almost everything - morality, economics, theology, etc.

You want good New Testament theology, read the traditional Gospels as they are and try not to reinvent them - as liberal theologians tend to do.

And if you think there's some fictitious material in the Gospels, then make your case. Show me your best ONE (1-just ONE, your best ONE) example of a fictitious person, place, or event in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case. Let's see that bad boy.

Name calling. aggressive incoherent rant post that did not respond to my post gets you nowhere.
still waiting for coherent constructive post.

 

[shunyadragon]

Was Jesus Only Human?

Possibly, but I believe Jesus was human as the Messiah and spiritually the Son of God with Revelation from God in the theme of the Progressive Revelation of humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not a chance.

The nature of Jesus is not based on chance, and not assertions based on belief and faith.

 

[Spartan]

Name calling. aggressive incoherent rant post that did not respond to my post gets you nowhere.
still waiting for coherent constructive post.

Flush. You had your answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Flush. You had your answer.

Still waiting wading through the acird insulting rants.

 

[firedragon]

The supporting attestations for the traditional gospel writers may be 2nd and 3rd century, but that doesn't mean the gospel authors themselves are not mid to late 1st century writers. Scholars look not only at what was presented in the gospels, but also titles that can change, verbiage, things that aren't mentioned (the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) and a lot of other factors to date the gospels. And those dates start within 20-30 years of the resurrection and go to 95 AD for John, who tradition says lived to be a very old man. In fact, critical scholarship places the first mention of the resurrection within a handful of years of the event itself. Here's the support for that:

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

You call that critical scholarship? No. Thats belief, not scholarship.

Anyway, I agree somewhat with your dates. But the idea that the writer of John lived to be a very old man is not scholarship, its a statement made out of no choice. You keep dismissing everyone calling them uneducated which only shows your personal character. It is a very arrogant and useless position in an online forum. But you are not quoting scholarship, you are quoting your faith. None of this is scholarship. Only now you have come mentioned dates that seem more reasonable anyway.

I've presented my answer to that a number of times previously. Here it is again:

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q (or having to make elaborate arguments for similar material in various gospels). Luke carefully investigated what happened from the earliest eyewitnesses, so his gospel reflects that material. Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. They may have even taken notes of some kind to be used later in their separate Gospels. And, according to Acts 1:3, Jesus spent forty days with them after the resurrection, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught:

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.

Do you deny the Holy Spirit, firedragon? If so based on what?

None of this is evidence against the Synoptic problem. Sorry to say but you seem completely unaware though you insult everyone else as uneducated. You are quoting and presenting evangelistic apologetics, not scholarship. If you cant make that distinction, you are an evangelist. Thats fine.

You can discuss this denial and embrace of a Holy Spirit in another thread. Its another irrelevant thing you are bringing. Another evangelical step.

Cheers.

 

[Spartan]

You call that critical scholarship? No. Thats belief, not scholarship.

Anyway, I agree somewhat with your dates. But the idea that the writer of John lived to be a very old man is not scholarship, its a statement made out of no choice. You keep dismissing everyone calling them uneducated which only shows your personal character. It is a very arrogant and useless position in an online forum. But you are not quoting scholarship, you are quoting your faith. None of this is scholarship. Only now you have come mentioned dates that seem more reasonable anyway.

None of this is evidence against the Synoptic problem. Sorry to say but you seem completely unaware though you insult everyone else as uneducated. You are quoting and presenting evangelistic apologetics, not scholarship. If you cant make that distinction, you are an evangelist. Thats fine.

You can discuss this denial and embrace of a Holy Spirit in another thread. Its another irrelevant thing you are bringing. Another evangelical step.

Cheers.

Suit yourself. I gave you good information. You call my claim that the Apostle John lived to be a very old man "not scholarship," and a "statement made out of no choice".

According to Irenaeus - who studied under Polycarp (a disciple of John) - the Apostle John lived until the "times of Trajan". Trajan's reign began in 98. Eusebiu's Chronicle implies that John lived until the third year or the reign of Trajan (i.e 100 AD).

So do your homework for a change before you bark at me.

 

[Spartan]

Still waiting wading through the acird insulting rants.

Do try not to darken my doorstep anymore with your liberal hogwash.

 

[firedragon]

Suit yourself. I won't waste anymore time with you then.

You are a true Christian. Very Christlike. You follow the Bible and are very humble. No arrogance at all. And you speak in very good respectable ways. Just like Jesus said you give the other cheek. Very good.

Peace.

 

[ajay0]

As per the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, Jesus is perceived as a son of God, but not as God. This view is consonant with the basic belief of the sect Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus is a prophet of God, but not God Himself.

 

[Spartan]

You are a true Christian. Very Christlike. You follow the Bible and are very humble. No arrogance at all. And you speak in very good respectable ways. Just like Jesus said you give the other cheek. Very good.

Peace.

Peace then.

 

[firedragon]

Peace then.

Peace.

 

[JJ50]

You are a true Christian. Very Christlike. You follow the Bible and are very humble. No arrogance at all. And you speak in very good respectable ways. Just like Jesus said you give the other cheek. Very good.

Peace.

Very funny

 

[shunyadragon]

Do try not to darken my doorstep anymore with your liberal hogwash.

Still waiting wading through the acird insulting rants.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you hold yourself to that standard, or do you believe in Nothing?

To the theological and historic claims of the bible lays a parallel
story - that of the Jew. This story is one all can see.
The bible holds that the Jews will reject the coming Messiah and
lose their land for a second time (before it was lost the first time)
The Jew will be outcast, persecuted and enslaved. But they would
remain a people for the long ages to come, and though a small
remnant they would come out of the nations that were their "graves"
and take back their land with the sword.

The bible's story of the Promise Land, God's people, Captivity
through sin, Redemption and Exile - all these are themes of God
- mirrored in the real story of the Jews.

How do YOU explain this? Or you don't?

I explain it with the idea of self-fullfilling prophecy, coupled with a certain amount of "artisitic freedom" in interpreting the stories in such a way, that it matches whatever prefered event you'ld like it to match.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think about Pliny writing about Christians? On what basis do you reject it?

He wrote about christians in at best 115 ad.
What is rejected by whom, exactly? Not sure what you are asking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My position is ...

• that there is a difference between the question of historicity and the question of divinity,
• that the question of historicity is not an matter of proof but, rather, a matter of abduction (IBE, or Inference to the Best Explanation),
• that reading Acts and the Epistles as fact-laced polemic is far more reasonable than reading them as complete fabrications,
• that it is therefore reasonable to acknowledge the existence of a Jerusalem sect with which (and, to some extent, against which) Paul interacted,
• that it is likewise reasonable to acknowledge the existence of substantive Christian communities operating in the diaspora within decades of the purported crucifixion,
• that this recognition is supported by Pliny and Tacitus.
• that the Josephus reference is more than adequate to provisionally associate this movement with a sect leader named Jesus,
• that there is no evidence of the mythicist argument being raised during this period, and
• that historicity therefore stands as the inference to best explanation.

You seem to be confusing the christian followers with the "god leader" these christians worship.
All points you mentioned here are very good evidence that christians existed.
It, by no means, provides any evidence for the historicity of jesus.

It only confirms that there were people who believed this story, generation or 2 after the supposed facts.