Was Jesus Only Human?

[Spartan]

Believe it? Heck, I’ve seen it!

Another delusional conclusion...

But there is something for you Q fanciers to consider: Any copying done from an earlier source (i.e Q) still has Jesus' miracles and his resurrection. So now you can believe!

 

[Spartan]

Not a coherent response . . .

. . . still waiting.

There is no evidence to determine the nature of Jesus as either 'only human,' or other various religious beliefs as Divine and human. By far most historians acknowledge Jesus as a real person in history, but beyond that historians consider religious claims as 'set' in history and not history.

There's plenty of historians who believe in the deity of Jesus. Just Google "Christian Historians" for your treat.

 

[Spartan]

A religious agenda based on faith takes precedence over education whether a Masters nor PhDs piled on.

My faith - and the faith of countless others - is also augmented by the historical evidences for Jesus Christ, as we read about them in the Gospels and elsewhere.

 

[JJ50]

My faith - and the faith of countless others - is also augmented by the historical evidences for Jesus Christ, as we read about them in the Gospels and elsewhere.

What historical evidences?

 

[Spartan]

What historical evidences?

The kind that goes in your right eye and out your left ear.

 

[JJ50]

The kind that goes in your right eye and out your left ear.

You say the craziest things, maybe you should take more water with it.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's plenty of historians who believe in the deity of Jesus. Just Google "Christian Historians" for your treat.

Trick or Treat? More Trick than Treat.

Virtually all these references refer to THEOLOGY in terms of beliefs of these 'historians' and not historical evaluations concerning what is known in academic history concerning Jesus. I looked through their books and they all referred to history not related to historically documenting Jesus as Divine in terns of Christian beliefs.

Instead of mindless google searches. You need to provide a reference that Jesus was documented in academic history as Divine in nature, instead of a Christian religious claim.

Of course Christian historians can claim to believe, but that is NOT academic history..

Still waiting . . .

 

[firedragon]

Virtually all these references refer to THEOLOGY in terms of beliefs of these 'historians' and not historical evaluations concerning what is known in academic history concerning Jesus.

I accept your position. But you should also know that there are many people who pose as historians and scholars but their research is also so bias and bogus sometimes. It goes both ways. Although, I must admit that the worst of them lot are the theologians, Muslim, Christian or whatever their theology is. But there are some so called historians and scholars who pose to be completely independent in their research but are catering to market needs.

 

[shunyadragon]

My faith - and the faith of countless others - is also augmented by the historical evidences for Jesus Christ, as we read about them in the Gospels and elsewhere.

The bold above is of course belief without evidence.

The historical evidence we have that relates to the life of Jesus, and that Jesus was a historical figure as believed by most historians, but outside the consensus of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, there is nothing documented outside the NT that Jesus was as Christians claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

I accept your position. But you should also know that there are many people who pose as historians and scholars but their research is also so bias and bogus sometimes. It goes both ways. Although, I must admit that the worst of them lot are the theologians, Muslim, Christian or whatever their theology is. But there are some so called historians and scholars who pose to be completely independent in their research but are catering to market needs.

Actually the list provided did refer to 'Christian historians' who are recognized academic historians, but heir publication and specialty was not documenting a historical Divine Jesus. The classification of 'Christian historians; is odd since most historians in the West are Christian, There are Middlest historians that specialize in the ancient history surrounding Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but they are not on the list, @Spatan is the problem misrepresenting the list provided.

Yes, evangelical theologians do make claims that cannot be documented concerning the historical Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Actually the list provided did refer to 'Christian historians' who are recognized academic historians, but heir publication and specialty was not documenting a historical Divine Jesus. @Spatan is the problem misrepresenting the list provided.

Yes, evangelical theologians do make claims that cannot be documented concerning the historical Jesus.

So do mythicists. So do all kinds of persons mate.

 

[sojourner]

I know the difference. The mythic Jesus is your half-baked delusion, and is common among spiritually-challenged skeptics.

Thanks for the ad hom. Your bias and agenda are duly noted. Apparently, you don’t know the difference or you wouldn’t call it a “half-baked delusion.”

 

[sojourner]

Another delusional conclusion...

But there is something for you Q fanciers to consider: Any copying done from an earlier source (i.e Q) still has Jesus' miracles and his resurrection. So now you can believe!

Another delusional conclusion...

But there is something for you Q fanciers to consider: Any copying done from an earlier source (i.e Q) still has Jesus' miracles and his resurrection. So now you can believe!

Just something for you who dismiss Q to chew on: neither miracles nor Jesus’ resurrection appear in Q. Perhaps you should take some time to learn about what you dismiss before you dismiss it. Your argument is turning out to be a straw man.

 

[Spartan]

Just something for you who dismiss Q to chew on: neither miracles nor Jesus’ resurrection appear in Q.

Show me Q? The fact is, you can't. And thus your claim that "neither miracles nor Jesus’ resurrection appear in Q" is nothing more than self-serving horse manure.

 

[sojourner]

Show me Q? The fact is, you can't. And thus your claim that "neither miracles nor Jesus’ resurrection appear in Q" is nothing more than self-serving horse manure.

Here: The Critical Text of Q in JBL Format (English only)

Fun fact: if, as you say, Q is nonexistent, how can it contain Jesus’ resurrection and miracles as you claim in post #321?

But take the time to read the text in the link. Miracles and resurrection are missing.

 

[Spartan]

Here: The Critical Text of Q in JBL Format (English only)

Fun fact: if, as you say, Q is nonexistent, how can it contain Jesus’ resurrection and miracles as you claim in post #321?

But take the time to read the text in the link. Miracles and resurrection are missing.

The link is not a manuscript of Q. There are no manuscripts of Q so you can't say you know anything that's in it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually the list provided did refer to 'Christian historians' who are recognized academic historians, but heir publication and specialty was not documenting a historical Divine Jesus. The classification of 'Christian historians; is odd since most historians in the West are Christian, There are Middlest historians that specialize in the ancient history surrounding Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but they are not on the list, @Spatan is the problem misrepresenting the list provided.

Yes, evangelical theologians do make claims that cannot be documented concerning the historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus? Look up 'Jesus', in the index to Josephus , alone. There is a 'Jesus', called justus, in the epistles!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah. that.

Anyway, thanks for giving at least a specific about what you think are Quranic prophecies. But your post portrays that you are just dismissive by default so thats very similar to others having blind faith in their respective scripture or whatever they believe in.

I am not interested in discussing that kind of thing brother. So thanks. Cheers.

You asked for claimed quranic prophecies. I gave you some. You then called that being "dismissive" and used that random comment to abruptly end the conversation.

Good job. You will not have to deal with the topic now. You dodged it like a pro.

I really suck at pidgeon chess....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are not a mythicist!

I'm as much a mythicist as I am a "there was a historical jesus" guy.
As said: I consider all three pretty much equally likely/plausible.

If you are not, that question of one does not apply and is irrelevant.

As I consider them all equally likely, I could argue from the context of any of them.

If we are to put historical possibilities there could be many.

An infinite number, actually. But not all of them equally likely or plausible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since the issue being addressed is that of historicity rather than divinity, these "many questions" are irrelevant.

I'm not even considering the divinity part. I do think it's relevant.

So, for example, we have the story of the inherently contentious relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem sect. Which do you consider more likely, that it's a complete fabrication, or that it's a (perhaps self-serving) tale evidencing a very real cult with a very real leadership and a very real following?

I think it's evidence that the cult existed.