DeanM

Or...We could try to understand that there may be a flexibility in the issue. Lets say Person X believes Jesus to be God, and Person Y believes that Jesus is Not God. Seeing a condition stated this way would leave most to believe that one of them is wrong.
Consider the watches worn by astronauts. On long missions, their time pieces show a different time (albeit slightly) then the clocks on Earth. The explanation for this lies in Einstein's theory of relativity, which has only recently been available to mankind.
Which time piece is incorrect? Answer: Neither is incorrect. But for the understanding of relativity, a debate would ensue.
What of the belief system of Jesus being God? It is only debated because mankind has yet to stumble onto a rational theory to explain that both can be correct. And perhaps this theory is not too different from relativity...
And when that day happens, all this discussion becomes moot bickering.
Want a really good tool to help see through the muck of modern philosophy and emerge with the ability to see things with ultimate clarity? Read "Lunch With God" by Steve Hershey http://www.lulu.com/content/906990

After you read That, a lot of things will fall into place for you that seemed impossible before...

Toto

I have split this off because I am not sure that it belongs in this forum.

DeanM: Can you give us a hint of what in that self published book of fiction is relevant to Biblical Criticism or History?

DeanM

Hi Toto,

Forgive me for referring to this book so often, it's just that I just finished reading it, and It's fresh in my mind. To answer your question, I find that some fictional books contain some pretty solid insights into religion. Consider Dante's Inferno, for example. It is a work of fiction that, arguably, has become the groundwork for much of the public's view of Hell.

Given that and the fact that "Lunch With God" spends a great deal of time discussing religion in the terms of there really being no conflicts in anyone's beliefs, for the reasons I have paraphrased in my original post, and it becomes a valid basis for a possible school of thought on the OP's topic.

I will refrain from linking the book, as I really have no cares whether anyone else buys it. But, I will refer to it as I feel it is pertinant to the discussions here.

And in terms of the view that both sides of this particual discussion might both be correct, I have not seen anyone else post anything that remotely supports that, except my post, which was paraphrased from the afore mentioned book, and credit should be given that this is not my original thought, but a major premise of a (yes) fictional novel

Dean

Toto

Well no, this is not helpful. It is just speculation that maybe someone will develop a theory that resolves an open contradiction.

There are some things in modern physics that are counterintuitive. That doesn't mean that any and every contradiction can be resolved by some theory to be invented in the future.

DeanM

Perhaps not every contradiction can be resolved, but the track record for ancient disagreements being resolved as more facts come to light is a strong one. The idea that Jesus is God to somebody who believes that, but not to somebody else who does not is as valid as any other school of thought. Remember the people who thought that planet's orbits were heliocentric? Where are they now? Were they right? Yes in the sense that your telescope will need to track planets following a path which is not elliptical at all, but heliocentric. Both schools of thought ended up being correct, depending upon the viewpoint of the observer. A man in space sees the orbits as ellipses. The man on Earth sees them as heliocentric, yet both are correct.

We seem to be having less and less to argue about as more and more topics get resolved by both sides being correct. What makes you think that this topic is so rigid as to not follow the fate of so many other arguments?

220volt

Two totally different things.
Relativity has been proven and tested over and over, where as you cannot even prove that Jesus even existed as a person let alone a God.
To recap:
Relativity=tested and proven so far
Jesus as a person or God= zero evidence
I don't see any similarities between the two at all.

David Deas

Much of the confusion over this and many other subjects related to Christianity arises because a large percentage of people who read the Bible aren't educated enough to read such a difficult piece of literature in the first place. The vast majority of Bible readers are the uneducated poor, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that a lot of individuals have trouble with the objective process of determining metaphor.

Yashua was obviously not Yahweh. But for a lot of individuals, believing that those two were actually the same individual is their idea of searching for deeper meaning.

DeanM

The key words in your post are "so far"
I never claimed that I had evidence to support the existence of Jesus. I merely showed that previously arguable issues have become unarguable as mankind gains wisdom. "So far" there may not be enough proof for you to believe that Jesus existed, and for you, that is your right. My point is to ask you if you can be 100% certain that you will Never have enough proof...

"So far"...you don't.

No Robots

I, too, will, yet again, inflict on all and sundry reference to a work which, I believe, does resolve all this: Constantin Brunner's Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk). Self-identification with the ultimate is the defining characteristic of mysticism, and Brunner argues that Christ is a mystic, the greatest of mystics.

220volt

Ok, let me put it this way.
We have overwhelming evidence for relativity but none for Jesus.
Of course we will never have 100% proof and I am not looking for one, but there is a huge difference scientific evidence based on facts and superstitious myths.