Was Jesus Only Human?

[firedragon]

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.

I agree with your thesis mate, but you said there were no manuscripts before 50 CE, again. You dont know that. You are making an absurd assumption. I dont mean to be rude but scholars dont talk like that. Maybe there were manuscripts and maybe they were all lost. Anyway, even Q is theorised to have been a physical written document which existed prior to Mark which you know very well. So if that existed, it would have been earlier than 3 decades after Jesus. So maybe it was prior to 50 CE. Which means there would have been manuscripts prior to 50 CE. You never can say "never". Dont make that mistake.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with your thesis mate, but you said there were no manuscripts before 50 CE, again. You dont know that. You are making an absurd assumption. I dont mean to be rude but scholars dont talk like that. Maybe there were manuscripts and maybe they were all lost. Anyway, even Q is theorised to have been a physical written document which existed prior to Mark which you know very well. So if that existed, it would have been earlier than 3 decades after Jesus. So maybe it was prior to 50 CE. Which means there would have been manuscripts prior to 50 CE. You never can say "never". Don't make that mistake.

OK, no KNOWN manuscripts dated earlier than 60-70 CE. 1 Thess may be hypothetically dated ~50 AD, but no early manuscripts.

 

[firedragon]

OK, no KNOWN manuscripts dated earlier than 60-70 CE.

Actually, no known manuscripts earlier than 125 CE (If P52 fits the bill). -_-

 

[sojourner]

Baloney. John 14:26 is the early source.

The Holy Spirit is not "the early source." If you really have a master's you should know that. Literary criticism relies on what we have, not on beliefs. What you're stating may be an apologetic, but apologetics isn't called for here. There is no source earlier than the 2nd century BCE. And to say otherwise, based upon your belief, is a clear case of eisegesis, and only beclouds the issue. It explains nothing, it solves nothing, it adds no real information into the mix. It sheds no light. It only serves to obfuscate. Which clearly is NOT the "work of the Holy Spirit," if, indeed, its "job" is to "bring us to knowledge."

 

[lukethethird]

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?

Who knows? Paul revealed his sources; visions and his ancient scriptures, where he read Jesus into everything.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who knows?

If you are incapable of forming an informed opinion on which scenario is the more reasonable, you might consider sitting out the discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, no known manuscripts earlier than 125 CE (If P52 fits the bill). -_-

Your correct new information dated the Mark fragment older than I previously thought: Is There a First-Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel? Apparently Not ". . . the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Edited by scholars Dirk Obbink and Daniela Colomo, P.Oxy. 5345 is an early fragment of Mark 1:7-9 , 16-18 , and is dated not to the first century but to the late second or early third century."

 

[firedragon]

Your correct new information dated the Mark fragment older than I previously thought: Is There a First-Century Fragment of Mark’s Gospel? Apparently Not ". . . the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Edited by scholars Dirk Obbink and Daniela Colomo, P.Oxy. 5345 is an early fragment of Mark 1:7-9 , 16-18 , and is dated not to the first century but to the late second or early third century."

That was Dan Wallaces wish bro. Not reality. I don't mean it derogatory, but its fact. P52 remains the oldest.

Another very very hard-fought effort was trying to prove that 7q5 was a Mark Papyri. Didnt work.

 

[Spartan]

The Holy Spirit is not "the early source."

Yeah, He is THE early source that anti-supernaturalist's always kick to the curb due to their bias.

 

[Spartan]

. . . but compiled after 50 CE.

So what? John was a follower and an eyewitness to Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, He is THE early source that anti-supernaturalist's always kick to the curb due to their bias.

“Supernatural” cannot, by definition, be used as a criterion for source material. The bias isn’t on the part of exegetes. Rather it’s on the part of apologists, who are, by definition, biased. Exegetes strive for impartiality, an attribute you missed out on when you were sick the day they taught literary criticism at college.

 

[Spartan]

“Supernatural” cannot, by definition, be used as a criterion for source material. The bias isn’t on the part of exegetes. Rather it’s on the part of apologists, who are, by definition, biased. Exegetes strive for impartiality, an attribute you missed out on when you were sick the day they taught literary criticism at college.

In your dreams. Christ is Risen and you're still in the dark trying to figure it all out. LOL.

 

[sojourner]

In your dreams. Christ is Risen and you're still in the dark trying to figure it all out. LOL.

Sorry; it is what it is.

Oh, and you have no idea what I have or have not figured out. My credentials are not at issue here. Suffice to say that faith and biblical criticism are poor bed mates.

 

[Spartan]

Suffice to say that faith and biblical criticism are poor bed mates.

You need a lot of help with your theology. Here's a short reading list for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

 

[shunyadragon]

So what? John was a follower and an eyewitness to Jesus.

John the disciple is not the author of John the gospel. The Gospel as finally compiled is quite late to have been written by a apostle at the time of JEsus and there are other problems with the gospel indicating it was an edited compilation. There is no evidence that any of the gospels were written by the apostles including the fact that they were originally considered anonymous.

Gospel According to John | Description, Authorship, & Facts

"Gospel According to John, fourth of the four New Testament narratives recounting the life and death of Jesus Christ. John’s is the only one of the four not considered among the Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those presenting a common view). Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by St. John the Apostle, “the beloved disciple” of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and that the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, about 100 CE for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background."

The claim that any of the gospels date to the time of Jesus and the apostles is terribly terribly weak with absolutely no evidence outside the claims of internal interpretation of the gospels..

 

[sojourner]

You need a lot of help with your theology. Here's a short reading list for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

You need a lot of help with your theology. Here's a short reading list for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

These aren’t works on theology. They’re works on apologetics. You need a lot of help with recognizing differences in disciplines.

 

[lukethethird]

If you are incapable of forming an informed opinion on which scenario is the more reasonable, you might consider sitting out the discussion.

I don't know and neither do you, how about them apples?

 

[shunyadragon]

You need a lot of help with your theology. Here's a short reading list for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

These are not historical research works documenting the evidence for Jesus during his lifetime they are apologetic works justifying their belief based on the internal evidence of the scriptures, which is highly circular in nature.

 

[Spartan]

These are not historical research works documenting the evidence for Jesus during his lifetime they are apologetic works justifying their belief based on the internal evidence of the scriptures, which is highly circular in nature.

They beat whatever you have.

 

[Spartan]

These aren’t works on theology. They’re works on apologetics. You need a lot of help with recognizing differences in disciplines.

No, you do, because you're not well read.