Was Jesus Only Human?

[shunyadragon]

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.

Hypothetical questions of conjecture are not meaningful to the discussion. We have to deal with the here and now of what is in any dialogue or debate on the subject..

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Q is hypothetical and the age is unknown. It would have been a very simple short biography by the current proposals.

1 Thessalonians is hypothetically the first document of Christianity, but again we do not have a dateable document.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

The Resurrection story exists only in gospel accounts, and has absolutely no corroborating writings nor evidence outside the gospels, therefore it is not a well documented event in history.

 

[sojourner]

Q is hypothetical and the age is unknown. It would have been a very simple short biography by the current proposals.

1 Thessalonians is hypothetically the first document of Christianity, but again we do not have a dateable document.

The age of Q is extrapolated from its relationship to Thomas. There are passages common to both texts. Q is likely Galilean in origin, given its content (which is not “biographical” but a collection of sayings). It is short. Thomas is Syrian in origin. Since both share several instances of common text, it’s likely that the community that produced Q and the community that later produced Thomas had their origins in the same group, and given the probable date of Thomas, the communities would have separated very early — as early as 7 years following the crucifixion. Therefore, the sayings would be very early, within 6 years.

Experts date 1 Thess. “Almost certainly” at 48 CE. I don’t know why you choose the term “hypothetically” when experts agree 48-50 CE.

 

[shmogie]

Hypothetical questions of conjecture are not meaningful to the discussion. We have to deal with the here and now of what is in any dialogue or debate on the subject..

The whole issue then depends. I believe the NT Gospels are eyewitness accounts of what actually occurred. They bear many of the hallmarks found in genuine eyewitness accounts, hallmarks that professionals who deal with eyewitness statements ( like me) see as an indication of authenticity.

You do not.

Game, set, and match

 

[oldbadger]

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

I like G-Mark..... don't much mind the original date, although I don't think we'll ever know the date it was first written.

 

[sojourner]

I like G-Mark..... don't much mind the original date, although I don't think we'll ever know the date it was first written.

I love the Mark story! I especially like the way the original ends in a cliffhanger: They fled the tomb, for they were terrified. The End.

Experts claim it was written post-70, because it mentions the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. But, as with Most Things Biblical, nothing's 100% for sure -- there are just too many gaps of information available.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I think Jesus was a man and only a man. He was above all else an observant Jew. Like most in his day, he had his opinions on Torah, and it was quite the tradition back then to argue about how best to observe Torah; Jesus did exactly that. He had enough charisma to have a small following, but was not special enough to even be mentioned in the Talmud. It was Paul who turned the movement into a major religion by spreading it to Gentiles.

 

[sojourner]

The Resurrection story exists only in gospel accounts, and has absolutely no corroborating writings nor evidence outside the gospels, therefore it is not a well documented event in history.

Not true. 1 Thess. Talks about the resurrection.

 

[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.

No, they can't. Just goggle it. What ever you saw, and interpreted, doesn't mean Jews are allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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

...the second half, yes we did.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

No, they can't. Just goggle it. What ever you saw, and interpreted, doesn't mean Jews are allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.

Good-Ole-Rebel

“Goggle,” as you pointed out in another post, isn’t always spot on.

 

[sojourner]

...the second half, yes we did.

Good-Ole-Rebel

He thinks there’s a separate “we.” Funny... I thought we were a union.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

“Goggle,” as you pointed out in another post, isn’t always spot on.

Where in another post?

That Jews cannot pray on the Temple Mount is pretty much common knowledge. What do you have that says differently? I am all for Jews being allowed to pray on the Temple Mount so information you have would be helpful...other than your opinion.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

He thinks there’s a separate “we.” Funny... I thought we were a union.

But you're usually wrong. So....

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

But you're usually wrong. So....

Good-Ole-Rebel

So we’re not a union? Tell that to the FAA, FCC, IRS, FBI, Medicare, NTSB, etc.

 

[sojourner]

Where in another post?

That Jews cannot pray on the Temple Mount is pretty much common knowledge. What do you have that says differently? I am all for Jews being allowed to pray on the Temple Mount so information you have would be helpful...other than your opinion.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Do you know what the Temple Mount is? It’s more than just the mosque. Jews are allowed on the Temple Mount, and, while there is a restriction, that restriction is enforced by... Jews. I’d be willing to bet that more than one Jew has uttered prayer there since ‘67 and gotten away with it. I don’t understand why you maintain that Israel isn’t under Jewish occupation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not true. 1 Thess. Talks about the resurrection.

! Thess. is not an outside independent source that may be testimony for the Resurrection, and Paul did not witness the resurrection.

 

[shunyadragon]

The whole issue then depends. I believe the NT Gospels are eyewitness accounts of what actually occurred. They bear many of the hallmarks found in genuine eyewitness accounts, hallmarks that professionals who deal with eyewitness statements ( like me) see as an indication of authenticity.

Depends? You may believe so on 'faith, but actually no by the evidence the gospels were not written by the apostles, and dated after 65 CE. There is absolutely no evidence of the gospels before this.

You do not.

Game, set, and match

Just assertions based on faith without evidence, your claim is about as good as the claim Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo.

 

[shunyadragon]

The age of Q is extrapolated from its relationship to Thomas. There are passages common to both texts. Q is likely Galilean in origin, given its content (which is not “biographical” but a collection of sayings). It is short. Thomas is Syrian in origin. Since both share several instances of common text, it’s likely that the community that produced Q and the community that later produced Thomas had their origins in the same group, and given the probable date of Thomas, the communities would have separated very early — as early as 7 years following the crucifixion. Therefore, the sayings would be very early, within 6 years.

Experts date 1 Thess. “Almost certainly” at 48 CE. I don’t know why you choose the term “hypothetically” when experts agree 48-50 CE.

All of the above remains hypothetical without confirming documents. The dates are far from 'certainty.' Of course Evangelical Christians have a habit of moving the decimal point beyond the actual evidence.