was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?

[Ozzy_O]

Romans 3:23
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.

Romans 5:12
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

Inerrant scripture words say all men (and women) sinned

Look up the Greek, all and everyone means all and everyone

So every HUMAN sinned per the inerrant scriptures

So, here’s the options:

A) scripture is wrong, everyone didn’t sin and is not born a filthy little sinner

B) Jesus was FULLY MAN, which would have to include sin because the Bible says so, or he wouldn’t be a spotless lamb; He made a conscious decision not to sin, and he absolutely could help it (unlike Paul’s claims in Romans 7)

C) God put on a disguise; He acted like he was fully human but he wasn’t ( in which case living a sinless life is easy for God because he spoke the universe into existence)

Philippians 2:7
….but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

He only took on the likeness of man not his full sin nature, in which case he didn’t play by the rules for us

No Christian has ever honestly answered this question

Let’s examine the premise we have been programmed to believe and critically examine the text

It has to be all one or the other for the story they tell us to be true

The truth is uncomfortable sometimes

So, which option is least damaging to the narrative?

[Clownboat]

Paul persecuted Christianity so why would he choice to lose everything?

For the very same reason other humans have invented god concepts and god claims. Surely you don't think all the gods are real, so I'm left puzzled by your bewilderment.

Sumayya, Yasir's wife, died while she was being tortured. She thus became the First Martyr in Islam. A little later, her husband, Yasir, was also tortured to death, and he became the 'Second Martyr in Islam'.

Tortured to death! Praise be to Allah if we were to use your reasoning.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #140]

I'm not claiming to have evidence of the disciples denying the identity of a corpse, nor do I need any. I'm pointing out that they could have, had the corpse been produced.

What? Jesus was a historical figure. The disciples were historical figures. They preached very early that Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity started in Jerusalem where Jesus died. There have to be reasons for why these events happen.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #141]

For the very same reason other humans have invented god concepts and god claims. Surely you don't think all the gods are real, so I'm left puzzled by your bewilderment.

Not sure what you are trying to say by this.

Sumayya, Yasir's wife, died while she was being tortured. She thus became the First Martyr in Islam. A little later, her husband, Yasir, was also tortured to death, and he became the 'Second Martyr in Islam'.

Tortured to death! Praise be to Allah if we were to use your reasoning.

Yes, this is what Paul was doing. The question is why would he stop and join the religion he was persecuting?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #139]

Maybe an increasingly severe guilt complex?

What evidence do you have for this?

There's also this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/

They even say in the article that this is nothing more than a hypothesis. Simply because they do no not like the alternative explanation.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #140]

I'm not claiming to have evidence of the disciples denying the identity of a corpse, nor do I need any. I'm pointing out that they could have, had the corpse been produced.

What? Jesus was a historical figure. The disciples were historical figures. They preached very early that Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity started in Jerusalem where Jesus died. There have to be reasons for why these events happen.

Muhammed was a historical figure.

Siddhartha Gautama was a historical figure.

Joseph Smith was a historical figure.

Etc.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #139]

Maybe an increasingly severe guilt complex?

What evidence do you have for this?

There's also this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/

They even say in the article that this is nothing more than a hypothesis. Simply because they do no not like the alternative explanation.

Guilt complexes are fairly well- known.

Maybe they "like" the explanation which is more likely.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #145]

Muhammed was a historical figure.

Siddhartha Gautama was a historical figure.

Joseph Smith was a historical figure.

Yes, they were so there has to be reasons and evidence for the way that they acted.

Muhammed and Joseph Smith were historical figures. Both say that angels visited them and gave them the holy text. They are the only ones that saw the angel when the angel gave them the text. So there were no eyewitnesses to this event. Both men died and were buried.

There is a little more doubt about whether Siddhartha Gautama was a historical figure. Born between c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE, and died between 483 BCE or 400 BCE. Those are some pretty large time spans. So establishing the historicity of Siddhartha is a little more problematic.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #146]

Guilt complexes are fairly well- known.

Maybe they "like" the explanation which is more likely.

What are you saying he was feeling guilty of? It was not outside of Jewish law to kill those who were blaspheming the name of God.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #147

Muhammed and Joseph Smith were historical figures. Both say that angels visited them and gave them the holy text. They are the only ones that saw the angel when the angel gave them the text. So there were no eyewitnesses to this event. Both men died and were buried.

No eyewitnesses gave us any account of the resurrection of Jesus.

There is a little more doubt about whether Siddhartha Gautama was a historical figure. Born between c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE, and died between 483 BCE or 400 BCE. Those are some pretty large time spans. So establishing the historicity of Siddhartha is a little more problematic.

Not as problematic as establishing the historicity of someone rising from the dead.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #146]

Guilt complexes are fairly well- known.

Maybe they "like" the explanation which is more likely.

What are you saying he was feeling guilty of? It was not outside of Jewish law to kill those who were blaspheming the name of God.

Killing is still killing, and not everyone is a born killer.