Was Jesus Only Human?

[Subduction Zone]

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

LOL!! When you poison the well with such unbelievably poor sources as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobell, two of the biggest jokes in the apologist biz, you shoot down your entire post.

You might as well admit that you have no good sources when you shoot yourself in the foot in this manner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They beat whatever you have.

Nope real scholars beat fools every day of the week.

 

[JJ50]

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

Nor are you by the looks of it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nor are you by the looks of it!

Oh he is "well read", the problem is what he reads. He is quite a bit like a believer in ancient aliens that cites Von Daniken and others as valid sources. He avoids actual scholars.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

@lukethethird, either you are claiming that all such 'unknowable' scenarios are equally likely or you are simply polluting the thread with thoughtless comments.

 

[shunyadragon]

They beat whatever you have.

So far nothing has been provided.

 

[sojourner]

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

Check out Barnes and Noble. They have several self-help books on blurting that might help you.

 

[sojourner]

@lukethethird, either you are claiming that all such 'unknowable' scenarios are equally likely or you are simply polluting the thread with thoughtless comments.

I vote for Choice B.

 

[lukethethird]

@lukethethird, either you are claiming that all such 'unknowable' scenarios are equally likely or you are simply polluting the thread with thoughtless comments.

If you want to sling insults at me for not sharing in your beliefs that's up to you. A couple posts back I pointed out that Paul revealed his unreliable sources after you referred to him, namely that his sources were visions and his reading of ancient scripture at which point you decided to sling insults. If you want to claim to know whether the Jesus in question was an historical figure or not from reading Paul or anyone else is your prerogative. I don't think you know and I don't think anyone can know from the information that we have. If you don't like it, it's not my problem, and if all you can do is sling insults then I'll have to consider that to be your problem.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you want to sling insults at me for not sharing in your beliefs that's up to you.

Whine less ...

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Regardless the referred to books are apologetic works and not historical academic works.

 

[Spartan]

Regardless the referred to books are apologetic works and not historical academic works.

Incorrect. Legitimate historical data is found in many apologetic works. If you think that's wrong you're not well read either.

 

[JJ50]

Incorrect. Legitimate historical data is found in many apologetic works. If you think that's wrong you're not well read either.

You wish to believe it is historical even though it isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect. Legitimate historical data is found in many apologetic works. If you think that's wrong you're not well read either.

History, like science, has its own peer review. Please show us this history that has passed peer review.

 

[sojourner]

Incorrect. Legitimate historical data is found in many apologetic works. If you think that's wrong you're not well read either.

"Historical data" within apologetic works and "historical works" themselves are not interchangeable. They are a completely different hermeneutic from each other. Just because a work of fiction contains many factual particulars doesn't mean that fiction is the best place to go for factual data. A well-read person would know that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Incorrect. Legitimate historical data is found in many apologetic works. If you think that's wrong you're not well read either.

Is found?!?!?! Please cite where?!?!?! The sources ou cite use th internal argument form the Bible and personal testimony, not academic history

 

[Goodman John]

I believe that Jesus was fully human, like any other man, but he was possessed of the spirit of Christ. To be fair, though, this was simply the luck of the draw- the Christ spirit could have just as easily appeared in his mother, Mary, or Stalin, or Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

[Spartan]

Is found?!?!?! Please cite where?!?!?! The sources ou cite use th internal argument form the Bible and personal testimony, not academic history

I'm not buying your self-serving "academic history" vs. the Bible. For instance, was Jerusalem sacked by King Nebuchadnezzar or not?

So here's my challenge to you:

Cite your best ONE (1 - just ONE, your best one) example of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Cite the pertinent scriptures and your evidence. Let's see that bad boy.

 

[Spartan]

You wish to believe it is historical even though it isn't.

Flush.

 

[shunyadragon]

Flush.

Need references and citations of academic historical references that show the research at the time of Jesus Christ life.

Still waiting . . .