Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I don't think that there was much of a historical Jesus.

He strikes me as just about as fictional as Plato's take on Socrates.

 

[Marcion]

I certainly see the Christian Christ Jesus as largely fictional. But the Yeshua of Q-lite may or may not have been historically connected to the person who allegedly started the original mission.

 

[Spartan]

But they, unlike me, assume there's such a thing as magic. Prophecy ─ supernatural foreknowledge ─ is a claim of magic, but in the entirety of the bible we have not one example which could give rise even to a suspicion of such a thing. We'd need rock-solid evidence (a) of the precise and entire wording of the claimed prophecy (b) that it was indeed made at the time, in the circumstances and by the person alleged (c) that it was so detailed, unforeseeable and remote in time that its occurrence would rule out coincidence (d) that it came true unambiguously and exactly as predicted in every particular and (e) that it was impossible for the wording or the reporting to have been falsified, or to have been altered after the event.

We do have a documented fulfillment of prophecy, with extra-biblical confirmations to boot.

Documenting A Miracle

It's also a fact that science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

The diagram doesn't say anything I don't. Please state exactly what you think constitutes your 'strawman' claim.

What? Are you saying Jesus is speaking to or for himself? No, he's talking to the Father in heaven, asking why the Father has forsaken him. And the reason is that for a time, Jesus became sin for us and carried the weight of all that on his shoulders.

 

[Spartan]

Personally, I don't think that there was much of a historical Jesus.

He strikes me as just about as fictional as Plato's take on Socrates.

I think the more you study the more you will find Jesus is indeed a very historical person. Here's some recommended reading that should change your mind, assuming there's no bias.

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

 

[Spartan]

Says who? Not the NT.
He didn't say it at all. And you are still to point to where he said 'I am God' unambiguously even once.

John 8:58 - "Before Abraham was born, I am."

I think someone has to be spiritually cognizant, though, to receive that.

Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant. The Suffering Servant is unambiguously the nation of Israel...

Not a chance.

"The suffering servant has qualities that were never true of Israel:

a. The suffering servant is depicted as being innocent. He did no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8b, 9b). Israel is never told she would suffer for being innocent. (See, for example, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.) In addition, Israel is never depicted as being innocent. A cursory reading through Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, and all the prophets make this abundantly clear. (See, for example, Isaiah 59:1-15, esp. verses 4-7 and Psalm 14:3. These are just two of hundreds of examples that could be cited.) That was why so many sacrifices were needed. Israel was never righteous, or even close to being righteous. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Israel is pictured as continually rejecting God and being repeatedly judged for her sins. This is in sharp contrast to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, who is portrayed as an innocent sufferer."

Ten Reasons Isaiah 53 Cannot Refer to Israel - Hope In Messiah

But of course Mark's Jesus is expressly NOT of the line of David, and Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses are NOT descended from David because Joseph is not the father of Jesus and anyway the two pretend genealogies are not only fakes but irreconcilable with each other. So even if we abandon the procedures of reasoned enquiry, suspend disbelief and take Jeremiah 23:5 as a prophecy, it can't be a prophecy of Jesus. (I take it you didn't really do a Masters without noticing those things?)

Tsk tsk...

1. The genealogy of Jesus isn't even mentioned in Mark.

2. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke clearly show David as a forefather. Early tradition says Luke's is showing Jesus' mother Mary as the descendant of King David. And Matthew arguably has Joseph as a legal, though not his biological father. There's all kinds of websites that go into this so I'm not going to spend eons of time on it.

But you're missing the big point: Jesus was prophesied to be the Son of God (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc.).

I doubt you'll agree but there it is anyway.

 

[blü 2]

Documenting A Miracle

https://righterreport.com/2007/07/14/documenting-a-miracle/
If the report is true ─ it could have been written after the event ─ then the explanation would be along the lines that astrological observations were sufficiently understood to predict a lunar eclipse. Move along, folks, nothing miraculous here.

It's also a fact that science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

One reason for that is that no one has a definition of 'God' such that if we found a real one we could tell it was God, or a god. Nor is there any definition of 'godness', a real property that a real god would have and eg a superscientist would not have, These are gaping holes in theology, completely consistent with God existing only in the imagination of individuals, and wholly incompatible with the notion of a real God, one with objective existence.

Not until someone provides those will there be anything for science to look for in reality.

What? Are you saying Jesus is speaking to or for himself? No, he's talking to the Father in heaven, asking why the Father has forsaken him.

In Matthew 27: 45 Jesus says,

ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν θεέ μου θεέ μου ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες,​

in which ηλι represents the Semitic word variously rendered Eli, Eloi, Elo, etc, meaning 'God', and θεέ μου is Greek for 'my god' (vocative case). So Jesus does NOT call on the Father, he calls on God, and under the Trinity doctrine he IS 100% of God. Therefore if the Trinity doctrine is correct he's saying what I said previously, Me, me, why have I forsaken me? (And anyway as I pointed out before, he's his own father, since he's son of God ─ at least as far as Matthew's and Luke's inseminated Jesuses are concerned.)

 

[blü 2]

John 8:58 - "Before Abraham was born, I am."

I dealt with that at the start, pointing out that Jesus had been in Heaven with God from the start.

It is NOT a claim to be god.

Try again.

Not a chance.

So it's a magic prophecy instead, you say? Tell that to any marines you come across.

"The suffering servant has qualities that were never true of Israel:

a. The suffering servant is depicted as being innocent. He did no violence,

All four gospels' Jesuses, in breach of Temple law, violently drove out the money changers who were a long-established part of the Temple's revenue system. If violence is a disqualification, Jesus is instantly disqualified.

Ten Reasons Isaiah 53 Cannot Refer to Israel - Hope In Messiah

Take off your apologists' hat for a moment and become an honest citizen sitting on a jury. In the first case you've had to consider, a driver has sworn that she didn't drive through the red light, a miraculous force from heaven seized control of her car and drove it through the red light then went away again; and without much effort you've concluded that was too silly for words.

In the second, you have to consider this: which is the more credible explanation? (In the real world, on a real jury, that is.)

A. the author of Isaiah magically knew the events of five centuries in the future and wrote them down as a prophecy though never mentioning it was a prophecy?
or
B. the author of Mark, not knowing anything very much about the actual biography of Jesus, who if the stories he'd heard were true had died about forty years earlier, used Isaiah 53 to plot the story he wanted to tell when writing Mark?

I notice you pick and choose which of my questions you answer. Please answer this one.

Tsk tsk...
1. The genealogy of Jesus isn't even mentioned in Mark.

Except to make it clear that he isn't descended from David (Mark 12:35).

2. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke clearly show David as a forefather.

Yes, of Joseph, and as you know, neither the Jesus of Matthew or the Jesus of Luke is the son of Joseph.

Early tradition says Luke's is showing Jesus' mother Mary as the descendant of King David.

That simply wouldn't happen. My bet is that one early tradition partly agreed with Mark, that Jesus was the normally born son of Joseph, and partly disagreed with Mark, and required descent from David, so the genealogies were invented by protoChristians, unfortunately without consultation, to show that Joseph was of the line of David.

And Matthew arguably has Joseph as a legal, though not his biological father.

Leaving aside Mark's Jesus' denial that descent from David is relevant at all (a) what did the law actually say back then about when a non-parent can be a 'legal' parent? (b) that wouldn't make Jesus 'of the line of David' anyway.

But you're missing the big point: Jesus was prophesied to be the Son of God (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc.).

You're missing the big point ─ magic only happens in stories, not in reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Certainly I don't take it in the sense of "human sacrifices" but rather one laying his life down for another. IMV, there is a difference.

When the language is vague or ambiguous, the reader is free to interpret it however he likes. Such language has no definite meaning. When this is done deliberately, it is called poetry, an invitation to inject yourself into the interpretation as a sort of verbal Rorschach test.

When the purpose was to write prose, if it's vague or ambiguous, it's just bad prose. It's not that hard for an educated human being to be clear and specific, so it should be a piece of cake for a deity. Have you ever cooked from a recipe or given somebody directions to your home? If the language doesn't clearly specify what step follows what, guess what? No edible meal, and no visitor.

The stakes are orders of magnitude higher if one's afterlife rests in the accurate description of what God commands. I expect at least as much clear language from a god as I do from a cook.

Having fulfilled the law and then taken the curse of the law, we are set free.

I've always been confused about how one fulfills laws. Prophecy and promises can be fulfilled, but not laws. You can obey a law, break a law, enact a law, strike down a law, and several other things, but to the best of my knowledge, you cannot complete or fulfill a law. Nor can you paint one, entertain one, or take its square root. These are all category errors.

For example, how does one fulfill a speeding law, and how does that invalidate the law? No matter how many times you obey laws, they remain in effect until they are rescinded or expire.

Then there's this:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be call the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' - Matthew 5:17-19

First, each of the gospels has Jesus saying in wholly unambiguous language that he's not God.

Excellent post.

The scriptural evidence from the Old Testament, the Gospels, from Paul, and Revelation, is clear - Jesus is God.

Apparently not as clear as you think. I think that @blü has made a compelling counter-argument. Of course, it sounded to me like he wasn't arguing about whether Jesus was called God by others, but rather, whether he called himself that.

you'd have to begin every sentence with, 'In flat contradiction of what the text says ...'

Or the apologist can just assert that the scripture means whatever one wants it to mean, and if called on a dishonest reading by an unbeliever, just attempt to disqualify the unbeliever's opinions, perhaps because he doesn't know how to read and understand scripture, because only believers are granted the power of biblical discernment.

I have been collecting these disqualification efforts from apologists for some time, and the list is long now. Here are the last several entries:

[62] “The scriptures are "the words of the wise" and you need wisdom to understand them.”

[63] “to have a proper understanding of what God desires you need to read the whole of scripture vs picking out isolated passages.”

[64] “Fixating on individual verses, especially in the Old Testament, written in an ancient pre-Christian culture, is not really a great way to read the bible.”

[65] It's quite obvious that you don't have any understanding about Spiritual discernment : "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 Corinthians 2:14

[66] A deeper understanding is important.

[67] I think someone has to be spiritually cognizant, though, to receive that.

My experience is that it's the other way around - only the unbeliever is free to read scripture objectively and with an open mind. The believer is constrained by the faith-based assumption that the Bible is coherent, accurate, and morally sound. So what does he do when he encounters words that seem to contradict that? He makes the cognizant dissonance go away with one of the tools in his apologetics toolbox, such as retranslating words.

Personally, I don't think that there was much of a historical Jesus.

Here a rhetorical question (needs no answer, just food for thought) : How much can we remove from the biblical account before the story is no longer close enough to the character in the scriptures to be called a historical Jesus? I think that we can agree that if everything said about Jesus except the miracles actually happened to an itinerant first century rabbi named Jesus and a group of apostles, that we could call what remained a historical Jesus.

Now, suppose that all naturalistic aspects of the New Testament actually occurred but one. Maybe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem during a census. If that fact can be disproved (and I believe it has), but all of the rest were correct, we could probably all agree that a historical Jesus actually once existed.

At the other extreme, suppose that none of the story has a historical correlate apart from the fact that a rabbi named Jesus existed in the first century CE, perhaps dozens. If that were the case, we could probably agree that Jesus of the New Testament was a fictional character.

How about something about halfway between these extremes of almost all historically accurate and almost all mythology. Suppose the story is true except for the miracles, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, he only had eight disciples and one was named Felix, Jesus was not a carpenter, his mother was not named Mary, there was no Last Supper or betrayal by Judas, Jesus was married and had children, and the Sermon on the Mount never occurred, but the rest is historical such as overturning the money changers and telling the parables attributed to Jesus. Is that still the Jesus of the New Testament?

You may already be familiar with the sorities paradox : "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times : Is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?"

Thoughts?

I did my Masters on "Jesus in the Old Testament" and I can assure you he's all over the Tanakh, from Isaiah 53 to Jeremiah 23:5-6 to being "THE Angel ("messenger") of the Lord" (in the Burning Bush), etc.

I've read the entire Christian Bible three times. I can assure you that there is no mention of Jesus in the Old Testament.

This is a nice example of the phenomenon to which I just referred. You want the Old Testament to predict the coming of Jesus as messiah, so that's what you see. I don't need to see that. I am free to report what the scripture actually says without twisting it to conform to a faith-based preconception. So, we offer different interpretations of what the words mean.

There's a number of books titled, "Christ in the Old Testament."

Are any written by secular humanists or others with no religious agenda to promote? Most unbelievers are pretty much done looking to apologists for sound, impartial arguments. We already know their "conclusions" before they start - that which they've chosen to believe by faith.

Then, as I explained earlier on this thread, they massage the evidence to seem to point toward their faith-based premise as if it were a conclusion derived from the evidence front-loaded to appear to lead to the premise, which is presented as a conclusion, or what I called a pseudo-conclusion

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We do have a documented fulfillment of prophecy, with extra-biblical confirmations to boot.

Biblical prophecy is what has come to be called low quality prophecy to distinguish it from high quality prophecy such as the prophecies that come from science.

High quality prophecy is specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed. High quality prophecy must be accurate, it must be verified that it came before the event predicted, and that it was fulfilled completely.

Low quality prophecy, such as that from biblical scripture, horoscopes, psychics, and the like, is relatively vague and nonspecific, predicts trivial or predictable events, may be self-fulling or written after the fact. Predicting that a new religion will experience prejudice, for example, doesn't require omniscience. How many times are we told that "that was foretold in the scriptures" as if low quality prophecy like that indicates divine prescience.

Biblical prophecies such as the one in Daniel 2:31-48, where, Daniel interprets the prophetic meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, are all examples of low quality prophecy - in this case, something too vague to be considered high quality prophecy. It is about a horrific-looking, immense, man-like figure made of clay, iron, brass, silver, and gold, which was pulverized to dust by a stone that became a huge mountain, and was then carried away by the wind. According to Daniel, this allegedly forecasted a series of lesser kingdoms to come in the future. Really? Maybe it was predicting 9/11 or the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico. The argument is just as (un)sound.

Here's what high quality prophecy looks like:

The Higgs boson was prophesied by the priests of particle physics to exist at a very specific energy, charge, spin, and parity. A very large and powerful machine was built on the justified belief that science would be shown to be accurate yet again in its prophesy, just as it had been with the prediction that matter could bend the path of light, and that there would be found a relatively homogeneous radiation detectable in all directions at a specific frequency and temperature.

Science already an impressive track record for prophecy, or prediction as it is more commonly known in science. In every case, something unexpected was prophesied to exist, its qualities specified, and it was found that the prophecy was accurate.

Or how about an example from fiction of a prophecy that would be convincing that somebody was predicting very specific events, I have to turn to fiction for this, because it doesn't happen in reality, but this is what it would take to convince the skeptical, critical thinker :

There was a movie some years back called Frequency in which Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts his father from his father's future by ham radio. To convince his father that he, the son, really is calling him from his father's future - from 1998 back to 1969 - the son discusses the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series, which the father is watching live in 1969 on TV in a local pub :

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuff mark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

Then the father watches it happen on TV.

That's what high quality "prophecy" of future events looks like, only it wouldn't be fiction. This would be a convincing demonstration of knowledge of future events, once fraud such as a tape-delayed broadcast of an already played game is ruled out. It's extremely specific and unexpected, preceded the event predicted, not self-fulfilling, and accompanied by no error. Biblical prophecy just can't compare to that, which is why it doesn't convince skeptics.

Documenting A Miracle

This is also low quality prophecy. It's not convincing.

High quality prophecy at a minimum would have specified the time and date of the birth of the messiah, his name and that of his parents, and specific events and places

It's also a fact that science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

It's a fact, but an irrelevant one. Science also hasn't proven that vampires and leprechauns do not and cannot exist. So what?

It's also a fact that there may be no way to demonstrate that our universe is godless even if that is the fact. That's fine. If so, it means that science will never have a need for a god hypothesis.

I think the more you study the more you will find Jesus is indeed a very historical person.

That hasn't been the case for me or many other skeptics. But then, we process information differently than faith-based thinkers.

Of course, it doesn't matter either way whether the story of Jesus is pure fiction (myth) or was based in part on a real man's life (legend) if that man wasn't a god or channeling a god.

Here's some recommended reading that should change your mind, assuming there's no bias.

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

"Gary Robert Habermas is an American historian, New Testament scholar, philosopher of religion, and Christian apologist who frequently writes and lectures on the resurrection of Jesus"​

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

"Joslin "Josh" McDowell (born August 17, 1939) is an Evangelical Protestant Christian apologist and evangelist."​

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

"Norman Leo Geisler (born July 21, 1932) is a Christian systematic theologian and philosopher. He is the co-founder of two non-denominational evangelical seminaries (Veritas Evangelical Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary). He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University and has made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, the history of philosophy, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, ethics, and more. He is the author, coauthor, or editor of over 90 books and hundreds of articles."​

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel .

"Lee Patrick Strobel (born January 25, 1952) is an American Christian author... and runs a video apologetics web site"
​

None of these are expected to be unbiased sources. They're all Christian apologists, an area with a terrible reputation with skeptics. I don't trust any of these authors to accumulate all of the relevant evidence and interpret it the same way that any experienced critical thinker and skeptic would.

Do you have anything from a mutually trusted source? Where are the books from people with no Christian agenda? There is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians, no valid scholarship not also available to unbelievers. If you have no non-Christian scholars agreeing with these apologists, why not? If you do have such sources, why aren't you providing those instead.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke clearly show David as a forefather.

Were you aware that they contradict one another? One shows that Jesus came 56 generations after Abraham, the other 43.

Also, one ends with

28. Jeconiah
29. Shealtiel
30. Zerubbabel
31. Abiud
32. Eliakim
33. Azor
34. Zadok
35. Achim
36. Eliud
37. Eleazar
38. Matthan
39. Jacob
40. Joseph & Mary
41. Jesus

The other ends

64. Mahath
65. Naggai
66. Hesli
67. Nahum
68. Amos
69. Mattathias
70. Joseph
71. Jannai
72. Melchi
73. Levi
74. Matthat
75. Heli
76. Mary & Joseph
77. Jesus

You probably know that you have only one (biological) father, one paternal grandfather, one paternal great-grandfather, etc.. all the way back to the last universal common ancestor of all life. If somebody presents you with two different genealogies for yourself, at least one of them is wrong.

But that's not an acceptable conclusion for the faith-based apologist that believes that scripture is of divine origin. Time to go into sanitation mode and come up with some answer - any answer - that seems to reconcile these two.

Incidentally, I noticed that you asked me for evidence that the gospels have been embellished over time, I provided it, and you didn't comment. Can we assume that you were convinced by my argument, or at the least, unwilling to confront it? The argument still stands unchanged, and unchallenged.

 

[Trailblazer]

But that's not an acceptable conclusion for the faith-based apologist that believes that scripture is of divine origin. Time to go into sanitation mode and come up with some answer - any answer - that seems to reconcile these two.

Incidentally, I noticed that you asked me for evidence that the gospels have been embellished over time, I provided it, and you didn't comment. Can we assume that you were convinced by my argument, or at the least, unwilling to confront it? The argument still stands unchanged, and unchallenged.

Christians believe what they WANT to believe, and it is not based upon reason, it is based upon faith. From my point of view as a counseling psychologist, what most believers (not only Christians) believe is based upon what they WANT to believe, what appeals to them on an emotional level and what fits their lifestyle. I do not think that most people actually stop to ask if what they believe is really true so challenging them with rational arguments is of no avail. I welcome rational arguments because a religion that is not based upon reason is of no use to anyone.

I do not know the Bible very well and I have never read it cover to cover as you have, and I have never studied it or read what others have written about it, because I was never interested until lately. But now I post to a lot of Christians because I just joined two Christian forums, so I would like to see the evidence that the gospels have been embellished over time, or any other evidence you have that backs up what you have said.

Baha'is take various positions in the divine origin of the Bible and its degree of accuracy, but I don't really have a position as of yet because I do not know enough to take a position.

 

[Spartan]

If the report is true ─ it could have been written after the event ─ then the explanation would be along the lines that astrological observations were sufficiently understood to predict a lunar eclipse. Move along, folks, nothing miraculous here.

So you're thinking an eclipse of the sun can occur during a full moon? That's bizarre.

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred during a full moon. So dig deep into your ditty bag and tell me what caused the strange darkness that lasted for three hours?

 

[Spartan]

None of these are expected to be unbiased sources. They're all Christian apologists, an area with a terrible reputation with skeptics. I don't trust any of these authors to accumulate all of the relevant evidence and interpret it the same way that any experienced critical thinker and skeptic would.​

<facepalm> That's how skeptics think - that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, biased, or an apologist for fairy tales. I've read Habermas extensively and he is light years above his skeptics.​

Do you have anything from a mutually trusted source? Where are the books from people with no Christian agenda? There is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians, no valid scholarship not also available to unbelievers. If you have no non-Christian scholars agreeing with these apologists, why not? If you do have such sources, why aren't you providing those instead.

See above.

I didn't see anything else noteworthy in your post that dozens of Christian websites haven't answered or refuted.

In conclusion, show me one (just one - your best ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been proven to be false. Cite the pertinent scriptures and your argument. I'll answer.

By the way, the census of Quirinius has been brought up several times and debated ad nauseum. It's basically an argument of silence against it, which is a logical fallacy. You can catch that debate on other threads. But if you want to go there then that's fine.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit

That's doubtful, as there are inconsistencies. However, even if it does, does that make it factually accurate? The bible is only a record of what was believed, not what is true.

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things

That's not what Genesis says. Whether El or Yahweh, Jesus still isn't on the list.

The Bible also says that Jesus existed as God BEFORE his incarnation as a man

Have you noticed Paul wasn't there? He's just making stuff up.

Is he God incarnate?

In as much as we all are.

Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being?

"The bible" doesn't say it. An author or two says it, and none of them were authors of Genesis.

WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest

I'd like to know if he was clinically dead first. The fact we had to put bells attached to graves up til relatively recently tells me we totally suck at determining death.

Do you have evidence Jesus' words have been embellished? If so I'd like to see it.

Go from Mark to John and you'll see a definite evolution of the character from some temperamental carpenter's kid to a demi-god.

Nope.. Jesus wasn't a renegade.. The Sermon on the Mount is about non violent resistance to the Roman occupation. That's why it was studied by Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Yeah but we really can't tell who is the correct Jesus: Sermon on the Mount Jesus or "Let's beat up some guys with a whip" Jesus.

Isn't this also how we know that leprechauns don't exist (s2)? If they did (s1), we might run into their pots of gold or see one every once in a while (r1) or not (r2), but that never happens.

I know, right? I actually managed to drive through the end of a rainbow on the way home once, and there wasn't a single pot of gold! The disappointment was real.

Jesus could not have died for our sins if he were not God.

But for ages livestock were used to forgive sins, right? They weren't God and didn't come back to life either. And yet the ritual remained.

No angel or nice guy can die and make atonement for the sins of all mankind.

Death isn't necessary at all for forgiveness. Even mortals can forgive others without dying.

But in order to die (ransom) all men, and not just himself or Adam, he had to be God.

None of the OT I can think of establishes this at all. It's pulled out of the authors' behinds.

That is exactly the same lie told Eve. He said she could become a god (Gen 3:5) and she fell for it. Same damnable lie dominating Christian doctrine today.

God confirms the serpent's statement that the real reason He didn't want them to eat it was that it granted godhood or at least godlike powers. I mean, the confirmation is verbatim.

As for Jesus not being omniscient - there are examples in the OP link where Jesus did have omniscient knowledge.

And there are examples where he is not, such as being shocked that gentiles can have faith.

But like Philippians chapter 2:6-7 notes

But I don't care what Paul thinks. He inserted himself into a story that doesn't belong to him.

There's scriptures that support the deity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit

There are scriptures that reveal Yahweh wasn't the Head Boss, but His Dad El was. They had a whole pantheon.

He said that He existed before Abraham

Where is he in Abe's story?

and that He was equal with the Father

So what? We're all made in His image.

Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins

Dogs can forgive sins. It's not that hard.

1. Be mad that someone wronged you.
2. Don't be mad that someone wronged you.

See? Easy peasy.

which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).

But it's not true. We are told to forgive others.

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe

Where is he in Genesis?

and that He is the one who holds everything together

Christians say that Satan is the ruler of the world, which means Jesus should be fired if he's the manager.

The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh

Was Paul there? He doesn't even know the guy.

John the evangelist says that “the Word was God”

Again, why isn't this supported by the relevant texts in Hebrew scriptures?

The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

There were also many people who followed Jesus or listened to Jesus and yet we don't hear from them. Wonder why? It's like asking Fox News to talk about Democrats.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well.

And yet we don't have much to go on from all these enemies. We never hear from them.

Why would the Romans care? They had lots of gods. One more wouldn't hurt.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God”

I tried reading John 10 but it never mentions anyone important who witnessed this conversation. Surely none of the authors.

That's incorrect. Jesus claimed he was Lord of the Sabbath

He could claim lots of things. Supporting the conclusion is needed.

Jesus said, "Take courage - it is I." But the Greek has it as "ego eimi" - I am. Jesus was telling the disciples he is the great "I AM"!

So you need to rely on a Greek translation to pull out the pun?

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega in the Book of Revelation, another divine title.

Yes, let's take the word of someone tripping balls while stewing in a jail cell bitter about his life. That makes sense.

Who - other than God - has ever instituted a new major Covenant with the nation of Israel, and really with people everywhere?

Which one, El or Yahweh?

He didn't say it very often because it always started a riot. That's why you don't see it more.

But he's God, so why should it matter?

I mean, two angels blinded an angry mob in Sodom. God can't get rid of some stoners?

 

[Spartan]

The bible is only a record of what was believed, not what is true.

Let's start with that. Show me one person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been proven false. Cite the scripture number and your argument.

 

[blü 2]

So you're thinking an eclipse of the sun can occur during a full moon? That's bizarre.

It would be, but you're the one who believes in magic, so what's the problem?

You think the sun stood still in the sky for Joshua, don't you? Because as the bible says it goes round and round the immovably fixed earth, so you just have to know where the brake is ─ et voilà!

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred during a full moon. So dig deep into your ditty bag and tell me what caused the strange darkness that lasted for three hours?

You mean the strange darkness that happened when Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses died, but not when Paul's or Mark's or John's Jesuses died? And that no one else in antiquity noticed? I'd say that was in the same basket as Matthew's zombies, a Wonderful Embellishment, a tall tale nowhere else remarked, no?

How do you explain what happened to Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses that didn't happen to the other Jesuses?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Let's start with that. Show me one person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been proven false. Cite the scripture number and your argument.

The fact that the authors claim to have witnessed or spoken to witnesses regarding events no one witnessed for starters. Feel free to go from there.

 

[Spartan]

The fact that the authors claim to have witnessed or spoken to witnesses regarding events no one witnessed for starters. Feel free to go from there.

Show me your evidence to support your position. Not just a claim or a theory but evidence.

 

[Spartan]

It would be, but you're the one who believes in magic, so what's the problem? You think the sun stood still in the sky for Joshua, don't you? Because as the bible says it goes round and round the immovably fixed earth, so you just have to know where the brake is ─ et voilà!

We're talking about the darkness during the crucifixion, not Joshua. Why don't you address that instead of going off on these squirrel trails?

You mean the strange darkness that happened when Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses died, but not when Paul's or Mark's or John's Jesuses died? And that no one else in antiquity noticed? I'd say that was in the same basket as Matthew's zombies, a Wonderful Embellishment, a tall tale nowhere else remarked, no?
How do you explain what happened to Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses that didn't happen to the other Jesuses?

OK, so you have nothing but blather to counter the multiple accounts from the Gospels and from NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES.

When you get something concrete let me know. Otherwise you're just fulminating and trying to move the goal posts.

 

[blü 2]

Let's start with that. Show me one person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been proven false. Cite the scripture number and your argument.

You still haven't told me whether you think Mark's Jesus, an ordinary Jew adopted by God at his baptism, or Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses, sons of God by divine insemination, is / are the real deal.

The point is that both can't be correct. The gospels are wrong (here and elsewhere) on the face of the record.

 

[rrobs]

We're talking about the darkness during the crucifixion, not Joshua. Why don't you address that instead of going off on these squirrel trails?



OK, so you have nothing but blather to counter the multiple accounts from the Gospels and from NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES.

When you get something concrete let me know. Otherwise you're just fulminating and trying to move the goal posts.

This time, I'm 100% with you!

Remember, to the natural man, the man without the spirit the new birth gives us, the scriptures are a closed book. To that man they are foolishness.

1Cor 2:14,

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
​

Ya gotta have spirit to know one!