Was Jesus Only Human?

[shunyadragon]

There is a lot of debate using historical sources.

There is other evidence which is not based on written history and that is the testimony of figures such as Muhammad (Quran/Hadith) and Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.

This evidence will not be satisfying to those who focus on historical evidence. It will be satisfying to others.

Belief and faith are ok for believers, but not convincing outside those that do not believe. This is true of all ancient religious scripture of different religions

 

[shmogie]

Huh?!?!?





Being 'fact laced polemic does not necessarily give the Acts of the Apostles is vary similar the case for the whole Bible.


Interact? Yes, so what? Paul was not a witness of the life of Jesus. He very well relied on the testimony of others with an agenda.



Decades? Be careful of what you are referring to as decades. Does not remotely represent evidence of the existence of the Biblical Divine Jesus. It remains that there are absolutely no references to Jesus Christ during his lifetime.
Of course, historical investigation proves your conclusions to be wrong, and it is held by few scholars.

One wonders why one who considers himself an authority in so many areaś could make a whopper mistake like this.

Paul didn´t ¨ interact ¨ with the Apostles, he was accepted by them as an Apostle.

¨ Decades ¨ after the crucifixion, 3-4, portions of todayś NT were in writing.

The divinity of the Christ, accurately reflected in the NT, is a matter of belief and faith, not history.

Yet there is little doubt that the Christ is a person in history. The circumstantial evidence is very strong.

Some believe an ex Muslim in the 19th century was in some fashion diivine. The evidence for such ? Positively nothing that I can see, just another sham prophet of the 19th century, of which there were many. Yet people believe he was a figure of divinity, one B¨hai stating that he was Jesus Christ.

Faith and belief, a right we all have, to be valued by each of us individually, what others think of this value we hold is totally irrelevant.















Bluntly no, Josephus references are distinctly third hand, refer more specifically to believers, and represent likely corrupted documents. Neither are the other record like those of Pliny considered reliable and uncorrupted.

Josephus is a source, but most definitely not necessarily a reliable source, unless cross referenced with other sources even for the record of his own life.



The problem with this is that other mythical humans that likely did not exist, or very fallible humans were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures.

 

[shunyadragon]

Start at the beginning.
Do you accept that the Baptist was redeeming Jews before they reached the Temple?

Start at the beginning? This hardly the beginning of anything related to the topic of the thread.
I am not sure this 'belief' is relevant to the topic of the thread. Based on one's belief this of course is true, but not based on fatual evidence, nor outside sources to convince those that do not believe.

 

[shunyadragon]

<air ball>

Not a meaningful coherent response.

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus gave his followers a much larger responsibility -- one that had to do with securing eternity.

OK, a statement of belief, but nothing more.

 

[firedragon]

Wrong? Back it up. I cited a reference documenting this academic view and there are more. At present the writing of Josephus are quite late and the copies we have are much later. Even the records of his own life are not entirely reliable.

I didnt see your reference.

Nevertheless, all of josephus is understood to be false. Only the exacting episode of jesus. In chapter 3. Not the fleeting mention in chapter 9.

Also, you equated the pliny episode where he mentions Christians to josephus which is absolutely wrong. Pliny speaks of chriatians, josephus speaks of jesus. Two different things. So you were wrong by saying "so was josephus". Chalk and cheese.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didnt see your reference.

Nevertheless, all of josephus is understood to be false. Only the exacting episode of jesus. In chapter 3. Not the fleeting mention in chapter 9.

Also, you equated the pliny episode where he mentions Christians to josephus which is absolutely wrong. Pliny speaks of chriatians, josephus speaks of jesus. Two different things. So you were wrong by saying "so was josephus". Chalk and cheese.

Equating the two and other late sources relates to their reliability as not reliable as used by those that claim they document the existence of Jesus Christ. In reality none do.

 

[firedragon]

Equating the two and other late sources relates to their reliability as not reliable as used by those that claim they document the existence of Jesus Christ. In reality none do.

So your argument is that josephus and pliny are just late. So both are bogus because they are late! That's your thesis?

 

[Workman]

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.

And no matter what you say you think...
I WILL LOVE YOU MORE than you would yourself.

God-Bless

 

[shunyadragon]

So your argument is that josephus and pliny are just late. So both are bogus because they are late! That's your thesis?

A little too simplistic. I do not consider any historical records as 'bogus.' I just consider them insufficient to be used as evidence for even the existence of Jesus Christ.

Actually the writings of Pliny and Josephus have historical value when correlated with archaeology and other sources.

 

[Augustus]

There is absolutely no evidence Lao Tzu ever existed.

So your example for someone who was deified shortly after their fictional death was someone who wasn't even mentioned for near half a millennium after his purported life?

Great example

Is it safe to assume you are unable to support your claim that "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures" and that it was completely without foundation?

 

[shunyadragon]

So your example for someone who was deified shortly after their fictional death was someone who wasn't even mentioned for near half a millennium after his purported life?

Great example

Is it safe to assume you are unable to support your claim that "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures" and that it was completely without foundation?

Glad you agree it is a great example. Thank you!!!!!

I said nothing about a 'fictional death?' I referred to a revered and founder of a religion, actually whose writings bear his name, but there is no evidence he ever existed. If Lao Tzu or Jesus Christ were true histoical figures their death would not be fictional.

On the other hand, as usual, you are arguing like a devoted Christian Theist.

There is absolutely no evidence Lao Tzu ever existed even in the records at the time he was supposed to have lived. The Chinese were far better record keepers than the West at that time and even all through ancient history,.

 

[Augustus]

Is it safe to assume you are unable to support your claim that "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures" and that it was completely without foundation?

There is absolutely no evidence Lao Tzu ever existed.

I rest my case

 

[Workman]

Which you believed..will be what you already have..and for, which you do NOT believe, Will TOO, be what you will not have. Either way..it will be your truth for it..that will make you TRUE in it.No matter what..IT IS!!

But it is your free-will, therefore everything is your choice..measure well!.and dont live yourself with ‘what if’s’.

God-bless

 

[shunyadragon]

I rest my case

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.

 

[Augustus]

Without a coherent response. May you rest in Peace

Do you actually need someone to explicitly explain to you that 500 years does not fall within the commonly accepted meaning of "shortly after their death"?

If so, 500 years is not shortly after someone's death.

So, can you actually provide examples to back up your claim "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death" , or is it safe to assume you were just making things up again?

 

[oldbadger]

Start at the beginning? This hardly the beginning of anything related to the topic of the thread.

Of course it is.

The Baptist's campaign to bring free redemption to peasants before they would reach Jerusalem where they would get ripped off for every bed and meal, and then ripped off at the Temple in so many ways..... this was the foundation of the Jesus history. You should read what the Baptist said it all.

Jesus picked this up when the Baptist had to drop it.

If you don't believe the Baptist's story then how could you go any further?

'Mercy and not sacrifice' was Jesus's call....... he really hated the Temple corruption, so easy to show you.

I am not sure this 'belief' is relevant to the topic of the thread. Based on one's belief this of course is true, but not based on fatual evidence, nor outside sources to convince those that do not believe.

There are those that don't believe in the Holocaust, regardless of living witnesses. I studied the Historic Jesus for years in order to find out for myself. I cannot expect folks who never cared to go on that journey to see what I found out.

But they'll have a difficult time in putting their disbelief in to a debate to win me back to ignorance about all the available Circumstancial, Secondary and Primary evidence that there is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you actually need someone to explicitly explain to you that 500 years does not fall within the commonly accepted meaning of "shortly after their death"?

If so, 500 years is not shortly after someone's death.

So, can you actually provide examples to back up your claim "other mythical humans that likely did not exist... were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death" , or is it safe to assume you were just making things up again?

Actually the 6th century reference to Lao Tzu is not documented nor is his actual life, and nonetheless he is considered a traditional mythical figure. If Lao Tzu was a real person some references consider Lao Tzu to have lived in the 4th century BCE when the earliest known Bamboo slip texts are known to exist.

From: Laozi - Wikipedia

Laozi (UK: /ˈlaʊˈzɪə/;[1] US: /ˈlaʊˈtsiː/; Chinese: 老子 Mandarin pronunciation: [làu̯.tsɨ]; literally "Old Master"), also rendered as Lao Tzu (/ˈlaʊˈtsuː/[1] or /ˈlaʊˈdzʌ/[2][3]) and Lao-Tze (/ˈlaʊˈdzeɪ/[4]), was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer.[5] He is the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching,[6] the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a deity in religious Taoism and traditional Chinese religions.

A semi-legendary figure, Laozi was usually portrayed as a 6th-century BC contemporary of Confucius, but some modern historians consider him to have lived during the Warring States period of the 4th century BC.[7] A central figure in Chinese culture, Laozi is claimed by both the emperors of the Tang dynasty and modern people of the Li surname as a founder of their lineage. Laozi's work has been embraced by both various anti-authoritarian movements[8] and Chinese Legalism.[9]"

Buddha's writing were compiled at conference shortly after his death including supernatural references surrounding his birth and life with no corresponding independent outside historical records that Buddha ever existed.

Buddha himself is described as an ascetic monk for most of his enlightened life and likely wrote nothing, but dictated his beliefs and teachings to others who recorded tham after and attributed them to him.

 

[danieldemol]

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 basically believe that overall He was a good human, but nonetheless only human.

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

I don’t think we should worship Jesus as a God, or even follow His example blindly, however I do believe that a man who was prepared to die a blasphemer was worthy of our adoration, as well as for standing up to the corruption and vanity of certain of the religious class during His lifetime, and finally for daring to act contrary to laws which the religious imposed on the people, even if this is somewhat marred by His own imposition of some silly laws such as being dogmatically opposed to divorce.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course it is.

The Baptist's campaign to bring free redemption to peasants before they would reach Jerusalem where they would get ripped off for every bed and meal, and then ripped off at the Temple in so many ways..... this was the foundation of the Jesus history. You should read what the Baptist said it all.

Jesus picked this up when the Baptist had to drop it.

If you don't believe the Baptist's story then how could you go any further?

'Mercy and not sacrifice' was Jesus's call....... he really hated the Temple corruption, so easy to show you.

You may believe this ok, but thre is no historical references at the time that would document this.

There are those that don't believe in the Holocaust, regardless of living witnesses.

so what?!?!!? There are vaste documented evidence first hand testimony and photographs.

I studied the Historic Jesus for years in order to find out for myself. I cannot expect folks who never cared to go on that journey to see what I found out.

Self fulfilling testimony where you find out what you want to believe is only meaningful to those that share your belief.

But they'll have a difficult time in putting their disbelief in to a debate to win me back to ignorance about all the available Circumstantial, Secondary and Primary evidence that there is.

No difficulty at all. I am not arguing from the perspective of belief nor disbelief. I am following the trail of possibilities for the life and times of Jesus Christ in a dialogue, which began with the proposition that Jesus could possibly be 'Only Human.' Nonetheless, based on the actual evidence I outlined the possibilities based on the evidence not belief.

I have my own belief concerning who and what Jesus Christ was, and it is not the subject of the thread.