Is Jesus' divinity supported by the Gospels

[enoch]

This is an academic not a religious debate, so don't go quoting whatever translation of the bible you are reading and think it can be claimed as absolute truth - that said - interpretation and conjecture are welcome

I am not well versed in this subject but I want to be.

I will throw out that Mark is the oldest book in the new testament, and yet in its original and oldest form it never mentions Jesus is the son of god, and concludes with Jesus resurrected - reborn not raised to god - and his ministry continuing

[GershomPatmos]

This is an academic not a religious debate, so don't go quoting whatever translation of the bible you are reading and think it can be claimed as absolute truth - that said - interpretation and conjecture are welcome

I am not well versed in this subject but I want to be.

I will throw out that Mark is the oldest book in the new testament, and yet in its original and oldest form it never mentions Jesus is the son of god, and concludes with Jesus resurrected - reborn not raised to god - and his ministry continuing

Cool...nice topic to bring up (considering coming from other thread). Anyways...since I'm going to participate (at least for a little while hopefully), I plan to let you know beforehand that although I may make scholarly/theologically sound statements at times - at other times I will probably use conjecture/opinion and observations, but try to support as much as possible. I will also at times give a more relaxed posting, along with more relaxed speech - such as the word "anyways" up above (I am American, and do pick up probably some bad linguistic habits - not that all other cultures are much better though IMO). lol I also intend not to invest in ad hominem attacks, and expect the same kindness from those on the other "side(s)" of the issues at hand. With that being said, there are some foundations I'd like to see if we can stand/agree upon moving forward, and I'll probably go over these and relate back/forward as often as possible (please pay attention to each word as much as possible):

1.) The NT Gospels were either written or orally told/passed down by first-century disciples of Jesus (not necessarily "apostles" - just "disciples"...can be direct or indirect discipleship - this can be discussed later).
2.) New premises may not be agreed upon...but is best to know where all contributing parties stand on such "important" issues (in other words - stressing the importance of bringing forth biases/stances/preconceptions, etc. - this doesn't speak about the credibility of such).
3.) Jesus was a Rabbinic Jew who lived in the first century (acceptance of the reality of such a person and his heritage, way he thinks/teaches, etc.).
4.) The scriptures (Greek: "grafe") Jesus refers to is actually the Old Testament (or "Tanakh") as Jews and Christians know it to be, not inclusive of the New Testament upon his speaking.
5.) The common language in the area of Israel was most likely Aramaic, though Greek would be known to speak to "foreigners" (especially Romans), and Hebrew would be known at least to teach from the Tanakh.
6.) The Tanakh was originally written in Hebrew (with some Aramaic, other languages, etc. in it - though predominantly Hebrew), though translations into Aramaic (certain targums) may have been available, and a Greek translation was definitely available and well-known in the form of the "Septuagint" during the first century.
7.) Early church "fathers" (Tertullian, Origen, etc.) may be used on the basis of textual quotation in consideration for textual criticism, but may or may not be agreed upon in accuracy, etc. in regards to their doctrinal views and opinions, etc.

That's all I can think of for now...there are probably a lot of premises, but it may be best if we talk about them (if they become too numerous) upon consideration in the future. But I tried to present some foundations we both can agree upon and go forth from hopefully.

later,
your friend,
Gersh
P.S. Anyone know how to get TWcenter from logging me out after a specified time? Can I increase it? Or do I have to "remain" logged in or something? I hate to have to remain logged in...some say it's a security risk. Thanks if you can help (anyone).

[enoch]

I completely agree, the only thing I would add is, while any text or translation can be used as conjecture or for interpretation,

the most commonly accepted "oldest, complete or close to complete, when it is debatable, version of any text" is the original version, and all subsequent versions must be referenced, and when possible, also given historic context (ex. when/why an alternate version appeared)

and when quoting from any gospel, the source (ex. which translation of the bible, which translation of the many, many other gospels

and also, when quoting any gospel, first try to be aware of whether or not the gospel is thought to have come from the actual historical disciple which gives the gospel its name and also, include information on the historical context of the author

hope that makes sense, I have little experience debating the purely academic realities of Christian dogma

[enoch]

since no one seems interested - the eventual answer would be not really - especially when the process of creation the new testament underwent, combined with the many later revisions introduced by various power structures and cultures throughout western history - is taken into account - not to mention the fact that the majority of sources closest to Jesus' time, and the sources most likely penned by his disciples or their first generation of converts were intentionally left out of the NT

[Zenith Darksea]

I don't see where you got your evidence for that last statement.

The sources most likely penned by his disciples or their first generation of converts were intentionally left out of the NT.

How on Earth can you support such a claim? Scholars date Thessalonians, for example, as being probably as early as 40 AD, while Mark could have been as early as 65 and Matthew probably was put in writing around about 70-85 AD.

What were the intentions of those people who 'left out' the earliest accounts from the NT? Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of Christians were already treating the four gospels as part of NT canon (and many of the epistles) by the time of the actual canonisation? A letter to the church in Corinth, written in ca. 95 AD, quotes ten of the twenty seven books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church in Philippi in ca. 125 AD quotes sixteen.

combined with the many later revisions introduced by various power structures and cultures throughout western history

Hmm, Western history, eh? Well, consider the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Bible is the same as the Western Bible (save for a couple of books of the Old Testament), and that the Eastern Orthodox Bible can be clearly traced to the first few centuries AD at least. Has the Bible that we have today in the West fundamentally changed? The answer is clearly that it hasn't.

What you'll find actually is that the majority of the 'gospels' that were 'intentionally' left out were left out because they dated from after the second century AD and had little or no connection with the real Gospels.

[Thanatos]

Hmm, Western history, eh? Well, consider the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Bible is the same as the Western Bible (save for a couple of books of the Old Testament), and that the Eastern Orthodox Bible can be clearly traced to the first few centuries AD at least. Has the Bible that we have today in the West fundamentally changed? The answer is clearly that it hasn't.

Blame Martin Luther.

[enoch]

I don't see where you got your evidence for that last statement.



How on Earth can you support such a claim? Scholars date Thessalonians, for example, as being probably as early as 40 AD, while Mark could have been as early as 65 and Matthew probably was put in writing around about 70-85 AD.

What were the intentions of those people who 'left out' the earliest accounts from the NT? Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of Christians were already treating the four gospels as part of NT canon (and many of the epistles) by the time of the actual canonisation? A letter to the church in Corinth, written in ca. 95 AD, quotes ten of the twenty seven books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church in Philippi in ca. 125 AD quotes sixteen.



Hmm, Western history, eh? Well, consider the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Bible is the same as the Western Bible (save for a couple of books of the Old Testament), and that the Eastern Orthodox Bible can be clearly traced to the first few centuries AD at least. Has the Bible that we have today in the West fundamentally changed? The answer is clearly that it hasn't.

[B]What you'll find actually is that the majority of the 'gospels' that were 'intentionally' left out were left out because they dated from after the second century AD and had little or no connection with the real Gospels.

[B]

I will address all of this - 3 of the 4 main gospels, Matthew, Luke, and John were, as you almost correctly pointed out, penned in the second century AD - also the members of the early Roman church used any gospel they could get their hands on , some of which were later included in the NT.

as far as connection with the "real" gospels, so is a gospel most likely written by Jesus' brother James not relevant
(unlike say Matthew which is the foundation of both churches (especially the Catholic) and was written by a man who lived nearly one hundred years after Jesu quit breathing)

as far as everything else, I daresay my blatant, provocative statement in which I did not include any source history (you didn't really include any either - one of the letters you speak of also quoted many other gospels that did not make the NT - sort of a key piece of info) did get the ball rolling, but I do appreciate that you at least had sources for you positions

now lets remember, academic debate so you have to point out your sources unless they are established facts

(ie - the oldest complete copy we have of Mark ends thus or Matthew was written long after Christ died, and at the very least after the burning of Jerusalem which I am pretty sure Matthew mentions)

things like the bible says it so it is right should be left out from now on

[Dunecat]

[
now lets remember, academic debate so you have to point out your sources unless they are established facts

Who determines this?

[enoch]

Who determines this?

the accredited worldwide academic community - and anything else that can be properly sourced

[Thanatos]

In other words, you only want to deal with "facts" that support your argument, when you've already been debunked by OldGamer and Zenith Darksea.

[enoch]

In other words, you only want to deal with "facts" that support your argument, when you've already been debunked by OldGamer and Zenith Darksea.

i believe you are speaking of the non-scholarly oriented debate on a different thread which ended with the conclusion that I was a little crazy and that OldGAmer did not even have a basic understanding of the history of the gospels - (he didn't know the original ending of Mark)

that said, I have no problems with Zenith's sources, I simply pointed out another facet of his sources that Zenith failed to mention - I, in fact, referred to the same source, if i am remembering correctly (I don't actually have a copy of the letter in front of me), that he did, so it is kind of hard to understand how I have been "debunked" by a source I am myself using -

that said - ACADEMIC - INTELLECTUAL ORIENTED DEBATE PLEASE

I understand debates like this are scary for christians who have not questioned their faith in a historic, academic context and I know that even having this debate offends people who hold their religious beliefs above something as intrinsically meaningless as history - please, if you are not capable of debating within the confines put forward by Gershom - just move on man
ie scholarly thinkers only!!!

[Turbo]

i believe you are speaking of the non-scholarly oriented debate on a different thread which ended with the conclusion that I was a little crazy and that OldGAmer did not even have a basic understanding of the history of the gospels - (he didn't know the original ending of Mark)

that said, I have no problems with Zenith's sources, I simply pointed out another facet of his sources that Zenith failed to mention - I, in fact, referred to the same source, if i am remembering correctly (I don't actually have a copy of the letter in front of me), that he did, so it is kind of hard to understand how I have been "debunked" by a source I am myself using -

that said - ACADEMIC - INTELLECTUAL ORIENTED DEBATE PLEASE

I understand debates like this are scary for christians who have not questioned their faith in a historic, academic context and I know that even having this debate offends people who hold their religious beliefs above something as intrinsically meaningless as history - please, if you are not capable of debating within the confines put forward by Gershom - just move on man
ie scholarly thinkers only!!!

Enoch,

I hope you won't take offense if I question your purpose on this thread.

Is your intention to limit your discussion to Christ's divinity only to the gospels? If so, this isn't much of a discussion since much of Christian theology dealing with the divinity of Christ comes from the writings of Paul and others. I suspect you know this and if this is the case, it isn't going to be a discussion of much consequence.

[enoch]

Enoch,

I hope you won't take offense if I question your purpose on this thread.

Is your intention to limit your discussion to Christ's divinity only to the gospels? If so, this isn't much of a discussion since much of Christian theology dealing with the divinity of Christ comes from the writings of Paul and others. I suspect you know this and if this is the case, it isn't going to be a discussion of much consequence.

all critical texts was the original idea - the writings of Paul included

[Thanatos]

Fine. If you can't see the light, then I leave you as well. Have fun talking to yourself.

[enoch]

Fine. If you can't see the light, then I leave you as well. Have fun talking to yourself.

you really got me with this one - your insult was so clever, to appear like a foolish child when you yourself have already "seen the light"

please help me - tell me where the light is so I can go see it
I can't believe that I always thought knowledge was the light (if there is a bloody light), it has been the bible all along (except, of course, in the times before a bible) when there was no light - very sad dark times those - <tear>

[Dunecat]

Concerning his divinity...

Let's start with John 5:39-40;

39 “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

Here is what M-Hinny has to say about this:

"In these verses our Lord Jesus proves and confirms the commission he had produced, and makes it out that he was sent of God to be the Messiah.

I. He sets aside his own testimony of himself (v. 31): "If I bear witness of myself, though it is infallibly true (ch. 8:14), yet, according to the common rule of judgment among men, you will not admit it as legal proof, nor allow it to be given in evidence.’’ Now, 1. This reflects reproach upon the sons of men, and their veracity and integrity. Surely we may say deliberately, what David said in haste, All men are liars, else it would never have been such a received maxim that a man’s testimony of himself is suspicious, and not to be relied on; it is a sign that self-love is stronger than the love of truth. And yet, 2. It reflects honour on the Son of God, and bespeaks his wonderful condescension, that, though he is the faithful witness, the truth itself, who may challenge to be credited upon his honour, and his own single testimony, yet he is pleased to waive his privilege, and, for the confirmation of our faith, refers himself to his vouchers, that we may have full satisfaction.

Henry, M. 1996, c1991. Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume . Hendrickson: Peabody"

John 10:25-30;

Jesus Is Rejected by the Jews

22 At that time the festival of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah,b tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; 26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.c 30 The Father and I are one.”
b Or the Christ
c Other ancient authorities read My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

Again, M-Hinny has a few choice words:


"(1.) He justifies himself as not at all accessory to their infidelity and skepticism, referring them, [1.] To what he had said: I have told you. He had told them that he was the Son of God, the Son of man, that he had life in himself, that he had authority to execute judgment, etc. And is not this the Christ then? These things he had told them, and they believed not; why then should they be told them again, merely to gratify their curiosity? You believed not. They pretended that they only doubted, but Christ tells them that they did not believe. Skepticism in religion is no better than downright infidelity. It is now for us to teach God how he should teach us, nor prescribe to him how plainly he should tell us his mind, but to be thankful for divine revelation as we have it. If we do not believe this, neither should we be persuaded if it were ever so much adapted to our humour. [2.] He refers them to his works, to the example of his life, which was not only perfectly pure, but highly beneficent, and of a piece with his doctrine; and especially to his miracles, which he wrought for the confirmation of his doctrine. It was certain that no man could do those miracles except God were with him, and God would not be with him to attest a forgery.

Henry, M. 1996, c1991. Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume . Hendrickson: Peabody"

Here is where Christ gives the reasoning for his followers to found his church, as well as confirming his divinity:

The Commissioning of the Disciples

(Mk 16.14—18; Lk 24.36—49; Jn 20.19—23; Acts 1.6—8)

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”d

d Other ancient authorities add Amen

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

M-Hizzle, again:

"(1.) Whence he hath this power. He did not assume it, or usurp it, but it was given him, he was legally entitled to it, and invested in it, by a grant from him who is the Fountain of all being, and consequently of all power. God set him King (Ps. 2:6), inaugurated and enthroned him, Lu. 1:32. As God, equal with the Father, all power was originally and essentially his; but as Mediator, as God-man, all power was given him; partly in recompence of his work (because he humbled himself, therefore God thus exalted him), and partly in pursuance of his design; he had this power given him over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as were given him (Jn. 17:2), for the more effectual carrying on and completing our salvation. This power he was now more signally invested in, upon his resurrection, Acts 13:3. He had power before, power to forgive sins (ch. 9:6); but now all power is given him. He is now going to receive for himself a kingdom (Lu. 19:12), to sit down at the right hand, Ps. 110:1. Having purchased it, nothing remains but to take possession; it is his own for ever. (2.) Where he has this power; in heaven and earth, comprehending the universe. Christ is the sole universal Monarch, he is Lord of all, Acts 10:36. He has all power in heaven. He has power of dominion over the angels, they are all his humble servants, Eph. 1:20, 21. He has power of intercession with his Father, in the virtue of his satisfaction and atonement; he intercedes, not as a suppliant, but as a demandant; Father, I will. He has all power on earth too; having prevailed with God, by the sacrifice of atonement, he prevails with men, and deals with them as one having authority, by the ministry of reconciliation. He is indeed, in all causes and over all persons, supreme Moderator and Governor. By him kings reign. All souls are his, and to him every heart and knee must bow, and every tongue confess him to be the Lord. This our Lord Jesus tells them, not only to satisfy them of the authority he had to commission them, and to bring them out in the execution of their commission, but to take off the offence of the cross; they had no reason to be ashamed of Christ crucified, when they saw him thus glorified.

Henry, M. 1996, c1991. Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume . Hendrickson: Peabody"

Finally, John 8:48;

 Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”ab 58 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
ab Other ancient authorities read has Abraham seen you?

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

Sorry, I know I have a lot of John and Mizzle-Hizzle (and how troubling those can be), but I can get more diverse... verses, if you wish.

If you don't give any credence to the bible, then what shall we go off of? We must then debate the validity of the scriptures, since ultimately that is what matters.

Now I don't have the direct sources, but I may find them if you so wish. I'm not quite sure why you want to be so anal, and dead set on finding the Truth™ on a video game message board, but... without further adieu-

I'll begin with several topics, such as the reliability of the New Testament documents, the "Gnostic" gospels, the Apocrypha, Old Testament Canon, and theistic presupposition arguments (mostly in regards to intra-christian debate regarding "heresy," or unfounded doctrine).

I have dabbled in this field myself, and have a few notes and ideas that I would like to run past you guys.

I would first like to discuss the reliability of N.T. documents, as it is free from the existence of God- either these documents are reliable, being authored by those close with Jesus the Christ, or they are forgeries in at least some sense. Both arguments are independent of the existence of God the father.

There are several tests you may do concerning the consistency of the N.T. Firstly is the bibliographic test, analyzing the quantity of similar copies, the time span from which the first known transcripts were found and when they were supposedly "written," and the degree of error between said copies. For this test, I will compare N.T. manuscripts to other manuscripts, usually attributed to those like Plato, Aristotle, and Homer (the possibility that some of these works are mis attributed is valid, but I feel that their comparison to commonly-rejected validity of N.T. documents is also warranted).

I don't have all the sources for these statistics, but I wouldn't think that they are that far out. Granted, some of this information came from my Christian education, but my teacher is a closet agnostic and would probably be fairly reliable, considering he dedicates his life to this realm. He's frankly a genius, as evidenced of his turning the family business into a massive corporation, and making 8 figures as it's CEO. (I know this how?...) But I digress...

There are roughly 5,300 Greek, 10,000 Latin (Vulgate - Jerome - 405ce), and 9,300 other "earlier versions" of N.T. documents. This is not a point, it is merely stating that these "books" exist outside of the collective "Holy Bible".

Manuscript Comparison to other Manuscripts:
AUTHOR     DATE WRITTEN     EARLIEST COPY     TIME SPAN     # of COPIES
Plato        427-347 bce         900 ce          2100 yrs       7
Aristotle    384-322 bce         110 ce          1400 yrs       49
Homer        900 bce             400 bce         500 yrs        643
N.T.         40-100 ce           125 ce          25 yrs         5,366

Textual Variation:
AUTHOR     # of LINES     # of (?) LINES     % (?)    % CERTAIN
Homer        15,600          764             4.89%    95.11%
N.T.         20,000          40              0.20%    99.80%

What does this show? Well, it's fairly simple- that their is an internal consistency within the N.T. Canon (textually), and should be given some respect, at least on par with that accredited to other "classic" works. Granted, there are NO original original documents that were handled physically by alleged authors.



The next test you may do is an external evidence test- that is, searching for historical references by chroniclers that correctly correlate with Christian Canon (say that 10 times fast...). Such as:

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover (Darkness included)
-Samaritan historian, Thallus (52 ce)
He was believed to have risen from the dead three days after this event
-Roman historian, Josephus (37-100 ce)
Jewish leaders charged Christ with Sorcery and believed he was born illegitimately
-Jewish Talmud (500 ce)
The Judean sect of Christianity could not be contained and was spread to Rome
-Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (52-54 ce)
Nero and other Roman rulers bitterly persecuted and martyred early Christians
-Roman historian, Suetonius (120 ce)
These Christians denied polytheism, lived by Christs teachings and worshiped him
-Greek satirist, Lucian (2nd century)

There is also archaeological evidence that may concur correctly with commonly accepted Christian Canon (now I'm just doing it on purpose...).

Luke 2:1-3 ~ Census
John 19:13 ~ Stone Pavement
John 5:1-14 ~ Pool of Bethesda
Acts 16:12 ~ Greek word's usage

Now, these are fairly minor and vague, but I had them written down, and figured it'd be a crime not to include them. I would venture to say that the fact that these things are true can only help the argument... but it does not prove (in this case) that EVERYTHING stated in the N.T. is true, of course. I am not making that claim (for the record). The point is that the N.T. is not- at the very least- completely fabricated.

I think I've done a fair job in covering the bases at least briefly on what an apologetic argument can contain concerning the historic reliability of the New Testament Canon.

Here is a thread previously created by me for the purpose of Christian apologetics: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ht=apologetics

And he is me bidding all adieu, adieu, to you and you and you.

*EDIT*- for some reason I'm having editing and format problems with quotes, so please forgive me... I've tried (And failed) and correcting them.

[enoch]

Ronnec - i am not anal and dead set on finding the truth, i just want to participate in a debate about Jesus and Christianity that is not

side 1 - the bible is true, god told us so

side 2 - there is no god or which god

debating personal beliefs is fun, but i would also like to walk away with concrete knowledge and I figure there may be others on this site who are interested in religion from an intellectual approach rather than a personal belief approach

this thread will not ever determine the truth behind Jesus' possible divinity
what it hopefully will do is give people who are interested is such a debate a place to air their thoughts without having to deal with the fanatics from either side, unless said fanatics also use sources

as far as Michael Henry goes - his commentary is a must-read without doubt but as I am sure you are aware
the book(s) (depending on what you are reading) is also nicknamed "The Believer's Handbook"

It was without doubt a scholarly work in its own time, and makes many well founded assertions, but its intended audience is a Christian one, and many of Henry's critics have described it as the book of everyday sermons.

In the end it is a commentary of a practical and devotional rather than of a critical kind, but I still applaud you for using a source and your arguments were sound based on said source

this is exactly what I am looking for, thank you RONNEC

[Chaigidel]

the primary problem i can see with the whole divinity of jesus thing is

if jesus was a god then his sacrifice was meaningless and thereby negates the basis of the faith around him.
also if jesus was a god then judas was the true sacrifice and the only one who truly suffered for others.

the bible esp the so called "nt" is just a construction of the council of something where constantine created the accepted and unacceptable canon for his new empire

more often in my understandings of the words ive readd jesus is referred to as a rabbi more often than anything-- just a teacher/ this doesnt confirm or deny divinity

when you have 300 years between formal congregation of a text and the events that took place you will have literal flare added the authors would have made the text more spicy and dramatic to entice followers like crows to shiny things.

the so called gospel of thomas probably reflects the essence of what jesus himself left us.

[enoch]

the so called gospel of thomas probably reflects the essence of what jesus himself left us.

I, too, have always thought that Thomas is one of the closest gospels to truth, simply b/c his depiction of Jesus makes some of the most sense historically, (Jesus acts in a way that coincides with the ideas and beliefs of his place and time in my opinion), and also because I really liked one particular translation I read as a kid - it escapes me -

The newly released Judas is also very interesting as a perspective on Jesus the man, and it shows that there are many possible sides and therefore truths concerning everything, even the nature and motivations of the Judas-Jesus relationship

[Dunecat]

the primary problem i can see with the whole divinity of jesus thing is

if jesus was a god then his sacrifice was meaningless and thereby negates the basis of the faith around him.
also if jesus was a god then judas was the true sacrifice and the only one who truly suffered for others.

Wrong? Gnostic and irrational. There are several verses dealing with the authority of Jesus, and what his sacrifice meant.

the bible esp the so called "nt" is just a construction of the council of something where constantine created the accepted and unacceptable canon for his new empire

Wrong again?

more often in my understandings of the words ive readd jesus is referred to as a rabbi more often than anything-- just a teacher/ this doesnt confirm or deny divinity

Again, have you read my post? Enoch is probably the only guy here who could rip me a new one on this one, because it seems like he would be clergy, and we all would be laymen. Or its equivalent. And I mean that.

when you have 300 years between formal congregation of a text and the events that took place you will have literal flare added the authors would have made the text more spicy and dramatic to entice followers like crows to shiny things.

the so called gospel of thomas probably reflects the essence of what jesus himself left us.

Again, wrong? I would humbly suggest you stop getting all your reading from gnostic DVC spin-offs you find at Borders and Barnes & Nobles.

I guess I could lay out an exegesis here for all of your points, but could I request that someone else do it? 1. I'd probably leave massive holes, as I didn't even leave a complete argument in my post prior, and 2. I'm just tired, and want to go to sleep.

I apologize for simply denying your statements with seemingly basis of my own, but I assure you there is a basis and promise one of my brethren (or I) shall respond to your comments, because we disagree with them. And that is the reason why we're here. [/matrix]