Was Jesus Only Human?

[PruePhillip]

Legally, yes, But not really. Israel can't do what it wants to do with Jerusalem without Arabs or the U.N. blocking them. Jews cannot even go to their temple mount and pray.

It is getting harder to find. But you still can. Just makes them more valuable.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I see your point. But I take it that Jerusalem is now in Jewish hands.
The temple will have to be sorted out another time. They should have
done so in 1967. Maybe pull that Muslim thing down and build a new
temple.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I see your point. But I take it that Jerusalem is now in Jewish hands.
The temple will have to be sorted out another time. They should have
done so in 1967. Maybe pull that Muslim thing down and build a new
temple.

I agree. It is too bad they didn't blow the 'dome of the rock' to dust during the 67 war. They had the opportunity yet declined. I wish they had. Yet, I always see God in it. It wasn't time.

The Jews are definitely planning on rebuilding the Temple. And the Dome of the Rock is in the way. It will happen. Sadly, as I believe the Bible, it will be through the work of the anti-christ that it is done. Interesting times.

*** mod delete ***

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[JJ50]

The Jews should never in a million years have been permitted to set up their own state without one for the Palestinians too. No wonder there has been so many problems in that part of the world.

 

[shunyadragon]

What I was noting was the great difference between sources for a person's life written down 20 years after their death, and those written down 300-500 years after their death based on a purported oral history.

Actually in terms of dating the possible earliest gospels it is not 20 years, And for Buddha it is the first and second councils that date Buddhism.

The point is clear that founders of other religions also have a lack of documentation during the life of the founder.

Why do you say the historicity is accepted but also hold the opinion that Buddha was a "mythical human that likely did not exist"?

I DID NOT say that quote me correctly!!!!!!! T

Actually it is possible that Buddha, Jesus and LaoTzu are all mythical humans that did not exist, or they may be 'only human.'.

The OT has nothing to do with the historical Jesus though so is pretty much irrelevant.

It has very much to do with the topic, because figures like Moses and others may not have existed at all, or the may have been simply human as per the topic of the thread. It is the question of provenance and authorship and the actual existence of the historical figures in different religions.

Again it is odd that you claim 'no religion' yet approach debate and dialogue as a devoted Christian apologist.

 

[Augustus]

Actually in terms of dating the possible earliest gospels it is not 20 years,

20 years = Paul, not the Gospels

I DID NOT say that quote me correctly!!!!!!! T

Actually it is possible that Buddha, Jesus and LaoTzu are all mythical humans that did not exist, or they may be 'only human.'.

Context:

You stated "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures."

I asked you for examples.

You provided Buddha and Lao Tzu (in context: other mythical humans that likely did not exist.)

Now you have clarified you weren't actually offering up an answer to the question you replied to, are you now saying you have no examples of "mythical humans that likely didn't exist [who] were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death" and that you made this claim in error?

 

[shunyadragon]

20 years = Paul, not the Gospels



Context:

You stated "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures."

I asked you for examples.

You provided Buddha and Lao Tzu (in context: other mythical humans that likely did not exist.)

Now you have clarified you weren't actually offering up an answer to the question you replied to, are you now saying you have no examples of "mythical humans that likely didn't exist [who] were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death" and that you made this claim in error?

OK, i over stated 'likely did not exist,' and should use like Jesus Christ 'possibly did not exist,' because of a total lack of records of their life during their lifetime.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the OT is not what Christians follow, otherwise we couldn't eat shellfish or pork.
Many things in the OT were done "for the father's sake" as Jesus put it. That is, God
suffered the Jews to do as they wished, otherwise the whole message of the bible
would be lost. So we got divorce, ten commandments, rule of Kings and even a temple.
It's complicated.

That "the Jews" were the authors of the OT is not the point. By this logic we need to
ask "Who wrote the New Testament"? Jews.
And the Jews were mystified by the dual Messiahs - Redeemer and King. They couldn't
see the need for a Redeemer, and being more interested in issues of world and time
they loved the Messiah King. That's why some Jewish bibles omit Isaiah 53, for example.

It is decidedly questionable that Jews wrote the New Testament. Paul was a Jew, but his history was shaky. Peter was a Jew, but by modern scholarship he likely did not write his epistles. The gospels in their final form were likely the responsibility of early Church Fathers.

It is a myth that Isaiah 53 is omitted from 'some' of the Torahs. Just like the New Testament the content varied over time. The fact is Isaiah 53 is present in the contemporary Torahs, and the Jewish interpretation and Midrash concerning Isaiah 53 is addressed extensively in Jewish scholarship.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is decidedly questionable that Jews wrote the New Testament. Paul was a Jew, but his history was shaky. Peter was a Jew, but by modern scholarship he likely did not write his epistles. The gospels in their final form were likely the responsibility of early Church Fathers.

It is a myth that Isaiah 53 is omitted from 'some' of the Torahs. Just like the New Testament the content varied over time. The fact is Isaiah 53 is present in the contemporary Torahs, and the Jewish interpretation and Midrash concerning Isaiah 53 is addressed extensively in Jewish scholarship.

I was at a Jewish "shubbers" (Aussie for Sabbath) where a Jew opened to
Isaiah and asked for a chapter. I said "Chapter 53" and after some fumbling
he said he couldn't find it. As it was, pages WERE missing, but I am left to
wonder about that.

Authorship of any book in the bible is a moot point. I have no idea who Job
was, for instance. And the flood story is Sumerian. Some authors do not
even give their names. Malachi means "messenger" for instance.
And in the NT, who wrote Hebrews?

Saying "early fathers" wrote the NT is true, but it's sly.
Paul, Peter, Jude, John etc were "early fathers."
But the suggestion is that some Catholic in another
century, when this church had silenced its rivals. put
pen to paper and wrote or rewrote the NT is patently
false. The bible was "canon" not because of its age
but for the NT it was canon because of its authorship,
that is, the witnesses to Jesus or the Apostolic Church.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We all have someone worthy of our worship and adoration

I couldn't name a single person/thing that fits into the category of "worship" in my life. I adore my kids and wife, I love my parents and siblings, and I have some very good friends. But "worship?" Honestly - I worship nothing. There is nothing I bow at the altar of. Nothing that definitively and perpetually commands my attention.

We all have a creation myth.

I don't. I have what I admit are wild guesses - but nothing in those even qualifies as a "creation." I don't believe the universe was "created." That assumes some kind of working intelligence, and I have no idea if there was one or not.

We all come to some conclusion about why we are here

I don't do this either. I don't believe there is any actual "reason." The question of "why?" most likely has no answer, if I had to guess. Is that "coming to a conclusion about why we are here?" It doesn't seem like it to me. Someone would have to produce evidence for the idea that we are here with some "purpose" before I would believe that was the case. Until then I maintain the default position - which is that I simply admit that I don't know.

We all work out a moral code

Here's something I can agree with. Because we are a social species and live around various other beings, we obviously come to some conclusions about how we want to react to the world, and how we want others to react to us.

We all have some story of what happens after death.

I wouldn't call it a story - I'd call it a guess. And my guess is it is exactly like what it's like before you are born. As in - nothingness. Oblivion. What was "you" is just not around anymore. But again, I don't know this, and admit I don't know for certain. This is just a guess based on all observable evidence within reality. You can call it a "story" if you like, but I maintain no serious allegiance to it. I have a guess... that's all.

And if not God then we hold ourselves as the highest form of things

This is terribly false. In my own life, I acknowledge no god. As far as I am concerned, I live and behave as if gods do not exist. They certainly don't appear to given reality as evidence. And yet, I come to an understanding that I, myself, am no more important to "the universe" than a stone, that I am composed of some of the same stuff as a stone, that I am nothing special at all. In fact, I have argued vehemently against many people's assumptions that we humans are "the top of the food chain" or "the paragon of animals." Its a sophomoric way to view our existence, in my opinion, and is entirely biased to our own, human point of view - which we think is fine because we assume we're "the best." It's just a circular deception we have allowed our egos to talk us into. We're nothing with regard to the greater universe at large. We are important to one another, and we need to focus on that - and not on pretending we're special to some magical being, or to "fate," or some other outside mystical force.

Christianity has had its day in the West. This was foretold in the New Testament,
(at a time before it barely had begun its ascendancy.) The thing that terrifies me
is what Jesus said about the Jewish nation. He said that because the Jews had
not known the time of their visitation they would be exiled and their city trampled
under the feet of the Gentiles - until the Gentiles are finished. Jesus didn't explain
what he meant by this, but the return of the Jews to their homeland suggests to
me that the Gentile time is finished now - as to what that means I cannot tell. But
if it means the Gentile will suffer as the Jew suffered then we are going to be in
for interesting times.

Nothing Jesus is purported to have said "terrifies" me. It's quite a funny notion, from my perspective. It's really, really strange to even think about how that works for you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was at a Jewish "shubbers" (Aussie for Sabbath) where a Jew opened to
Isaiah and asked for a chapter. I said "Chapter 53" and after some fumbling
he said he couldn't find it. As it was, pages WERE missing, but I am left to
wonder about that.

As I stated before 'some' is not meaningful from the Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53. They neither avoid it nor remove it from 'most' Torah. Jewish scholarship addresses the interpretation of Isaiah 53.

From: Isaiah 53 Explained
The use of ISAIAH 53, aka "the suffering servant" chapter has been consistently misquoted by missionaries trying to claim that the prophet Isaiah is speaking of Jesus and fulfills the prophecies that "he would suffer for our sins." They often site the fact that "the servant" is singular and must therefore be talking about a single individual - Jesus. Though a thorough analysis can not been given in this limited space, we will explore some important points.

First, one must read the entire book of Isaiah in context and from an accurate Jewish translation (such as an Artscroll/ Mesorah Publication Bible). It was written by Isaiah who was a prophet from 619-533 B.C.E. In the original text there were no chapters and breaks. The book was written in fluid format and therefore, must be read as a whole. When doing so, you will note that this chapter, which is known as the "Fourth Servant Song" actually begins in chapter 52 verse 13.

When reading Isaiah and 5 text, God often calls Israel and Jacob (an5 reference to Israel), His "servant" in both the singular and plural.

Examples:
"But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me...and to whom I shall say: 'You are my servant' - I have chosen you and not rejected you." (Isaiah 41:8-9)

"But hear now Jacob, My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen!" (Isaiah 44:1)

"Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!" (Isaiah 44:21)

"..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name..." (Isaiah 45:4)

"...say, 'Hashem (God) has redeemed His servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)

"...You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory." (Isaiah 49:3)

"But as for you, do not fear My servant Jacob, the word of Hashem (G-d) and do not be afraid, Israel..." (Jeremiah 30:10)

"A heritage for Israel, His (God's) servant, for His kindness endures forever." (Psalms Chapter 136:22)

In Chapters 52 - 54, the prophet is referring to the gentile nations who have tormented and inflicted pain and suffering on the Jewish people. It is THESE nations who will be astounded and shocked to see that God has saved us from their persecution and returned us to our home, Israel: and, that ultimately, God will vindicate us for our suffering The same promises appear in the Book of Ezekiel 36:6-9 & 15 and in Jeremiah 30:8-13.

An5 interesting point is, many missionaries often claim that "the Rabbis" have deliberately eliminated this chapter from the Haftorah portions (section from Prophets that is read every Shabbat after the Torah reading) in an effort to suppress the fact that Isaiah is talking about Jesus. The Haftorah system was established nearly two hundred years before the common era and Christianity, when Jews were prohibited to read and learn the Torah (pre-Chanukah revolt).

Authorship of any book in the bible is a moot point. I have no idea who Job
was, for instance. And the flood story is Sumerian. Some authors do not
even give their names. Malachi means "messenger" for instance.
And in the NT, who wrote Hebrews?

Authorship is the main point and contemporary scholarship dates the gospels more recent then the lives of the apostles, and seriously questions the authorship of Peter's episcles and some of Paul's leters.

Saying "early fathers" wrote the NT is true, but it's sly.
Paul, Peter, Jude, John etc were "early fathers."
But the suggestion is that some Catholic in another
century, when this church had silenced its rivals. put
pen to paper and wrote or rewrote the NT is patently
false. The bible was "canon" not because of its age
but for the NT it was canon because of its authorship,
that is, the witnesses to Jesus or the Apostolic Church.

Possibly, but the apostles Peter, Jude, John etc are not considered the authors of the texts assigned to their names.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am of the opinion that a man called 'Jesus' existed, he was probably intelligent with a commanding personality, which made him stand out from the crowd, but like the rest of us was a mixture of good and not so good. The gospels writers used Jesus as their figurehead when creating the character of the promised messiah. I believe much of what they attributed to Jesus was either highly exaggerated or untrue, like the virgin birth and the resurrection myths. However, it is possible some things were factual, like him having a high opinion of himself, a very human condition, if not a pleasant one. As a kid he supposedly went off to the Temple to 'impress' the elders with him knowledge, without asking his parents permission, which was very naughty. Maybe they grounded him until he was 30, when he came to public attention. Jesus could have been a clever magician, the so called miracles were possibly nothing more than magic tricks, which took in the gullible. The exorcism nonsense did him no credit at all, as it caused a herd of pigs to fall over a cliff, animal cruelty, and harmful to the pig farmer, who presumably didn't get any compensation. Telling people to leave their responsibilities to follow him was stupid and very wrong. I can see why he angered the religious hierarchy of the day, not that was any excuse for having him crucified.

All in all I think he would have been an interesting person to get to know, but certainly not deserving of worship and adoration.

The NT is explicit that believing in Jesus as a mere mortal was not why they risked martyrdom by Rome or expulsion from Jewish life.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ has been called the best documented event in ancient history.

Your Bible commentary is out of context, uninformed, and needlessly pejorative. Your biases show.

 

[sojourner]

None of that makes any sense to me, even if it does to you.

It makes perfect sense. Perfect. In fact, I’d say that the poster’s theological parsing is at the far end of the scale of “this makes sense,” while that of your OP is at the “0” end of the same scale.

 

[sojourner]

The fact that you refer to Jesus Christ shows that you have never researched Jesus the man

You are muddling Divinity with History, just as Jayhawker may have been trying to tell you.

G-Mark was probably written circa 50-60CE and in the lifetimes of witnesses. It could well be the memoirs of Cephas.

You only have to study the history to perceive the man, but the Christ story is separate

Mark was written post-70. Early, but not that early. Q and Thomas are much better evidence for the historic Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

You have no case to rest, and without a coherent response. May you rest in Peace.

The writings of Lao Tzu can be dated to near the time he supposedly existed, but nonetheless like Jesus Christ no record that either existed.

My wife is a genealogist. Many times it’s difficult to find records of someone even as late as the 19th century. Birth records are great, if you can find them. Death certificates too. But many times other, more anecdotal evidence is what we have to work with.

Asking for evidence of the existence of a not-royal or not-government official in a small corner of the 1st century Roman Empire is even more ludicrous. What would suffice for you as “evidence” in a culture that was largely illiterate, in which little outside of official governmental documents was permanently written down? Do you want a birth certificate, duly notarized, accompanied by photo ID, a driver’s license, passport, two bills in Jesus’ name that show his permanent address? That any permanently-written evidence exists for Jesus in the 1st century is astounding — anecdotal or otherwise. Multiple attestations in Q and Thomas get us back to at least 7 years following the crucifixion. In those circumstances, that’s pretty strong evidence that a man Jesus existed. But you’re probably still waiting to hear back from the Jerusalem County Clerk’s office with a photocopy of some document with a bar code. And an old photograph of Jesus sitting on a pony.

 

[sojourner]

The same is true of the New Testament writings as the earliest known gospel is Mark dated ~65 to 70 CE.

Yeah, but Q is older. So is 1 Thess.

 

[sojourner]

Ok. How is Jerusalem in Jewish hands? The Jews cannot go and pray to their God on the Temple Mount. So how is Jerusalem in Jewish hands?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Sure they can! When I was in Jerusalem at the Dome of the Rock, do you know who I saw at the entrance? Israeli soldiers carrying American M-16s, guarding the entrance. All Israeli soldiers are Jewish — no Arabs. I’d say that puts the Temple Mount firmly in Jewish hands.

 

[sojourner]

So, what is your problem? Jerusalem is not in Jewish hands.

Good-Ole-Rebel;

... and the South actually won the Civil War too.

 

[sojourner]

Given an historical Jesus existed, he was totally unnoticed in his lifetime. For example, the gospel fracas between the Sanhedrin and a Jewish preacher that got the Roman Prefect personally involved could scarcely have happened in history without leaving some or other reference to it (let alone the miracles claimed at Jesus' crucifixion) but the cupboard's completely bare.

Not necessarily. Permanent writing was scarce in that time and place. Most writing (when such happened) was done on clay tablets — not permanent.

 

[shmogie]

Not sure how you rate historical evidence, but yes, most historians consider Jesus to be a historical figure, but the religious claims of Christianity concerning Jesus Christ are considered the history of the religious beliefs of Christianity, and not factual documented history.



Actually you are emotionally going beyond the subject of the thread, my responses, and it has nothing to do with my beliefs.

I have made no specific claims of my beliefs, nonetheless I do believe Jesus existed as a historical person.

As far as this thread goes, I am addressing the evidence and different possibilities as to who and what Jesus was, and in reality from an objective less biased perspective there are possibilities and options, and Jesus being 'only human' is a possibility

Certainly a possibility. But, again, it is a matter of faith as to His divinity. If a non Christian Roman proconsul wrote a document discovered yesterday detailing miracles and the ascension that he witnessed, would it be accepted as historical fact ? By some yes, by the critics, never.

There is no historical record of Christś divinity that could exist, that would be acceptable to those who deny it, none.

So the entire question is moot, history cannot produce evidence that the deniers of the subject of that evidence will accept.

 

[sojourner]

There is no evidence to support the idea that guy Jesus was any sort of messiah. Most of what that unpleasant guy, Paul, who had literary diarrhoea, had to say should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, imo.

There’s a joke about a Baptist and an Episcopalian who were having a conversation about church. The Baptist asked, “Do you believe in infant baptism?” The Episcopalian replied, “Believe in it? Hell, I’ve seen it!”

This is the same kind of argument. What kind of evidence do you want? Do you want the Circuit Judge of New York to rule on the issue — just like he ruled on the existence of Santa Claus? I’m not sure that the case for Jesus is an ontological argument. Either the mythology works for you or it doesn’t. But the mythology presents us with a valid theological foundation. If you don’t “get it,” that’s your fault — not the fault of the constructs themselves.