Was Jesus Only Human?

[Desert Snake]

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.




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



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

You need more than that for an argument. No matter what the argument is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe the Bible is credible evidence because it is the word of God.

And you believe it's the word of god, because it says so in the bible, right?
And you believe the bible because it is the word of god, right?
And you believe that because the bible says so and the bible is correct because it is what it says and that is write because it says so.


Circular argument is circular.

 

[Desert Snake]

'Jesus cult', jesus religion, based on writings, like [[Josephus, , most likely means there was one or more Jesus, hence historical Jesus.

Mythicist would be something else. In other words, if you accept the general idea, a rabbi named jesus , crucifixion, that isn't mythicism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need more than that for an argument. No matter what the argument is.

More then what?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

I disagree. First, the problem with the term mythicist.

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

There is not question here that most historians believe Jesus was a real person in history, and yes in later writings like Josephus Jesus is referred to, but in third person referring to believers, and other later references referring to the believers of Jesus. In fact some of these references like in the writings of Josephus they are considered later additions to the writings by Christians.

The question is not whether Jesus existed. The matter of fact is that is absolutely no reference from any source during the life time of Jesus specifically no outside sources, and NT compiled later is the only reference for the divinity of Jesus.

You should not tell people to look things up, but provide the specific references yourself that are relevant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it's evidence that the cult existed.

Excellent. And Paul's relationship with the cult? And the cult leader? And the adelphoi? Are these pure fabrications? Or is it not more likely that there was, indeed, a Yeshua around whom the Jerusalem church was built?

 

[firedragon]

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....

Sure sure. Cheers.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Yes, there is no physical evidence for Q, but the problem is there is absolutely no manuscripts known written before ~50 CE. The basis for something existing early called Q is based on the common content in the gospels.

 

[firedragon]

I disagree. First, the problem with the term mythicist.

Okay. Let me say "people who dont believe Jesus ever existed". And also many many others.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, there is no physical evidence for Q, but the problem is there is absolutely no manuscripts known written before ~50 CE. The basis for something existing early called Q is based on the common content in the gospels.

Thats wrong to say that brother. Just because manuscripts seized to exist doesn't mean they never existed.

 

[sojourner]

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.

It's not an "original," but it is a manuscript! Q is the corpus of material that is common to both Matt and Luke. That's what's compiled here: the material that's common to both Matt and Luke. That's Q, by definition. I know what's in it, because I've read it. You have not.

 

[Spartan]

It's not an "original," but it is a manuscript! Q is the corpus of material that is common to both Matt and Luke. That's what's compiled here: the material that's common to both Matt and Luke. That's Q, by definition. I know what's in it, because I've read it. You have not.

Q is baloney. Always has been. Until you show me an ancient manuscript of it you have zero.

 

[Spartan]

Yes, there is no physical evidence for Q, but the problem is there is absolutely no manuscripts known written before ~50 CE. The basis for something existing early called Q is based on the common content in the gospels.

John 14:26 is the source.

 

[shunyadragon]

John 14:26 is the source.

OK, this is what you believe, but not evidence that would convince anyone who does not believe as you do.

Quoting scripture as internal evidence is intensely circular reasoning, and all compiled after 50 CE.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thats wrong to say that brother. Just because manuscripts seized to exist doesn't mean they never existed.

I did not say Q never existed. I consider the concept of Q and the Gospel of Thomas on equal footing as the rest of the NT, because nothing existed as far as manuscripts before 50 CE.

 

[sojourner]

Q is baloney. Always has been. Until you show me an ancient manuscript of it you have zero.

Where's the ancient text of Genesis? We don't have that either. The earliest we have is very fragmentary and dates to the 2nd century BCE. We know that the Genesis sources are much, much older (and likely oral). Yet you believe Genesis exists. What's baloney is demanding ancient texts, when none exist. Q was very likely an oral source. But it is a source, nonetheless, and was later written into Mt and Lk.

 

[Spartan]

OK, this is what you believe, but not evidence that would convince anyone who does not believe as you do.

Quoting scripture as internal evidence is intensely circular reasoning, and all compiled after 50 CE.

Nope. But keep reading the New Testament and you'll be light years ahead of where you are today.

 

[Spartan]

Where's the ancient text of Genesis? We don't have that either. The earliest we have is very fragmentary and dates to the 2nd century BCE. We know that the Genesis sources are much, much older (and likely oral). Yet you believe Genesis exists. What's baloney is demanding ancient texts, when none exist. Q was very likely an oral source. But it is a source, nonetheless, and was later written into Mt and Lk.

Baloney. John 14:26 is the early source.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope. But keep reading the New Testament and you'll be light years ahead of where you are today.

Not a coherent response that addresses the issues at hand.

 

[shunyadragon]

Baloney. John 14:26 is the early source.

. . . but compiled after 50 CE.