ALL evidence to support the divinity of Jesus

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads someone complained that "The Atheists" refuse to consider evidence presented by religionists.

Here is an opportunity to bring forth all the evidence relating to a VERY important subject -- the divinity of Jesus. I promise to evaluate everything presented as fairly and objectively as possible -- and trust that others, believers and non-believers alike, will do the same.

Lay out the evidence and let's go over it point-by-point. Fair enough?

[Wolfbitn]

On the issue of the supposed Divinity of Jesus, I think we are in complete agreement on this one. I don't think there IS any evidence for it outside of the New Testament, and even those verses which SEEM to indicate his Divinity are ambiguous at best or overwhelmed by verses which contradict later church teachings that he was Divine, verses such as 1 Timothy 2:5:

New International Version (NIV)

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the MAN Christ Jesus,

(my emphasis added for the word "man".)

Even Paul here reasserts the Biblical teaching that God is One, and makes a distinction between God and Jesus.

yeah like i said, and you prove my point... you guys dont know the manuscripts, you dont know the johnaniine comma, or cyprian, nor the SHEMA for pete's sake, you dont believe, nor do you want to... and you think you are superior in spouting that Christ is just a man.

This thread bleeds with sneering as it is... and like I said, you're not really going weigh any evidence at all... you want to sneer more... which brings me back to my question... what then is the point of this thread?

At least it is obvious youre not really out for any sort of serious discussion... that should say enough in itself.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Wolfbitn]

You got me, I don't know what those references you used are. Please explain them to us.

But I am familiar with the Shema, and Jesus was too.

The Shema does not support the claim that Jesus was God, just the opposite. The Sema states that YHVH is ONE, it does not state that the "Trinity" is one.

And I for one am not "sneering". I am not ridiculing the belief in Jesus as "God" I am not comparing him to Unicorns or Santa, I am simply disagreeing with the claim and asking for evidence.

I don't see how the Shema is evidence that Jesus is supposedly "God".

[Danmark]

Cant wait for the floods of evidence to start pouring in!

This is a 'one liner' and does not advance the debate.
Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

On the issue of the supposed Divinity of Jesus, I think we are in complete agreement on this one. I don't think there IS any evidence for it outside of the New Testament, and even those verses which SEEM to indicate his Divinity are ambiguous at best or overwhelmed by verses which contradict later church teachings that he was Divine, verses such as 1 Timothy 2:5:

New International Version (NIV)

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the MAN Christ Jesus,

(my emphasis added for the word "man".)

Even Paul here reasserts the Biblical teaching that God is One, and makes a distinction between God and Jesus.

Calling Jesus a Mediator between God and Man is actually something that would be out of the playbook of Philo of Alexandria. .. and would tie into the whole 'Logos as the wisdom of God' concept... which could have provided an inspiration to the way Logos is used in the Gospel of John. It is very heavily hellenistic in flavor, and was rejected by Jews of Judea

[Elijah John]

On the issue of the supposed Divinity of Jesus, I think we are in complete agreement on this one. I don't think there IS any evidence for it outside of the New Testament, and even those verses which SEEM to indicate his Divinity are ambiguous at best or overwhelmed by verses which contradict later church teachings that he was Divine, verses such as 1 Timothy 2:5:

New International Version (NIV)

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the MAN Christ Jesus,

(my emphasis added for the word "man".)

Even Paul here reasserts the Biblical teaching that God is One, and makes a distinction between God and Jesus.

Calling Jesus a Mediator between God and Man is actually something that would be out of the playbook of Philo of Alexandria. .. and would tie into the whole 'Logos as the wisdom of God' concept... which could have provided an inspiration to the way Logos is used in the Gospel of John. It is very heavily hellenistic in flavor, and was rejected by Jews of Judea

I reject it too, although I think that may be their best shot, and most convincing evidence. I do not accept the whole "Logos" thing, even though I see elements of the Logos in the book of Proverbs, (where Wisdom is personified as female, I see that as a poetic device) and in the book of Daniel, where admittedly, I do not know WHAT to make of the "Ancient of Days=Son of Man" concept.

But those instances, as well as the "suffering servant" stuff in Isaiah, are the best arguments I see for the assertion of Jesus supposedly being spoken of in the Hebrew Bible, but I do not find even those "best" arguments conclusive or convincing.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 11 by Wolfbitn]

Not sure you could include the Johannine comma as evidence for the divinity of jesus for two reasons

1. It was only found in a few late medieval manuscripts
2. It says the father, the word, and the holy spirit not jesus. Jesus is not included in this description.

I still don't see how Cyprian is evidence for the divinity of Jesus either.

I think its best you stop making erroneous claims about another's knowledge. Not only is this arrogant it is uncivil. You can't know what another knows. Please stop insulting people you are already on probation.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 16 by DanieltheDragon]



I know sneering when i see it, and i saw it on this thread... Also thats a great example of the johnanine comment I made... you are pretty much just repeating what it often repeated, and this is clearly incorrect. It did not originate with later byzantine manuscripts at all

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Elijah...

Good to meet anyone familiar with the Shema. I'm just curious if you are Jewish and have the popular conservative view on the Shema?

And what do you think of the particular word "Echad" used here?
.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wolfbitn]

the earliest pro Johanneum comma supporters can base its origins at around 500ce but only indirectly.

Just because someone mentions something closely resembling it doesn't mean it was actually part of scripture early on. After all when Cyprien was around there was still a great debate being waged about the trinity. It would not be unusual for him to say what he did without that scripture being there in place.

There are far more theological detractors than supporters especially since it does NOT appear in the greek manuscripts it is commonly viewed as an accidental interpolation.

I don't think using a very sketchy and controversial verse is really helping your position. I am sorry if you view this as incorrect but you need to provide evidence that supports your position. I don't count heresay as strong evidence. Y our going to have to link me the johanneum comma in a greek manuscript.

[Ooberman]

.
In one of the threads someone complained that "The Atheists" refuse to consider evidence presented by religionists.

Here is an opportunity to bring forth all the evidence relating to a VERY important subject -- the divinity of Jesus. I promise to evaluate everything presented as fairly and objectively as possible -- and trust that others, believers and non-believers alike, will do the same.

Lay out the evidence and let's go over it point-by-point. Fair enough?

If I thought you were serious and this was not just a "baiting" thread title, I would give you what you want.

Even f I were you most likely know nothing about ancient manuscripts from between 100-500 ad, nor would you know anything in depth regarding the Johnanine comma, or Origen's edits, nor would you know much about Cyprian except what you could wiki. And I seriously doubt you would accept historic evidence... so what's the point of you even asking?


.

This is why this site is going to crud. Any time we want to debate something, the theists (generally, but more specifically, the Believers) do nothing to debate. They simply attack.

Here, the OP is saying he will judge the evidence accordingly. That's a fair claim - even as wrong as we might know it to be (no offense Zz, but it would be the same for anyone).


Yet, here, the Uber-Apologist offers nothing but bile.


We need to get back to the Classic debates - as boring as they are - to get some new blood here.

This site can now be characterized by a bunch of atheists, a few random kooks and a few pleasant Christians who debate sparingly.

We need to get Christians who are willing to do their 1Peter3:15.

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

Clearly, most Apologists here have not read the Bible, nor heed it.