Nathaniel

...where in the passage does Jesus say that he is not good? He asks a rhetorical question, and says that only God is good. So Jesus is claiming that he is good if and only he is God. Jesus is also a blasphemer if and only if he is not God.

aa5874

Where in the passage does Jesus say he was good?

And, if there is only ONE that is good and that ONE is God then how can Jesus be that ONLY ONE?

The God of the Jews claimed he was the ONLY GOD. He SWORE to HIMSELF.

Isaiah 45:20-23 -
Now, it matters not what JESUS BELIEVED. The Sanhedrin considered that JESUS was a man, that he claimed to be the son of the God of the Jews in their PRESENCE, and that he would come in the clouds on the right hand of Power.

Based on the story, the Sanhedrin considered any HUMAN making such statements a BLASPHEMER and once the LAW provided for the death penalty then JESUS died for his own SIN or Crime.

Solo

Except that Paul tells us that it was for the sake of believers God made him sin. Jesus himself knew no sin. (2 Cr 5:21).

Jiri

aa5874

So, the words of Paul are more credible than the words of Jesus? What makes Paul so good?

Paul in the NT Canon was BLIND when he heard a voice of saying it was from Jesus.

Paul wrote NOT thing one about his ability to CONFIRM that JESUS could have or did talk to him. Paul wrote NOT thing one about his ability to IDENTIFY Jesus.

"Paul" is a total waste of time with respect to credibilty. There is no indication that "Paul" actually SAW Jesus say anything to the disciples on earth.

The Sanhedrin accepted Jesus as a man and that he made a statement that was deemed to be blaspemous and was excuted under the LAW.

Stephen in Acts was executed under the LAW once deemed guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

James in Josephus 20.9 was executed under the LAW once found guilty by the Sanhedrin.

Jesus died for his own sins.

Solo

Paul is addressing himself to spiritualists and believers. He claims God has revealed a secret about his Son to him. Whether it is so is a difficult matter, but within the NT credal manifests, Jesus cannot be said to have been executed for his own sins or crimes. And, as you have often pointed out, there is no independent external evidence to make such a call.


For crying out loud, aa, Saul was blinded, and a voice demanded to know, why he (Saul) was persecuting him (Jesus). Saul, asks for the identity of the caller. He is told it is Jesus, whom Saul was persecuting. Given the sudden incapacity with which Saul was struck during his mission to deliver Jesus believers from Damascus to Jerusalem, I suppose Saul had no desire to quarrel with, or interrogate, the assailant who overpowered him.

Jiri

aa5874

But, there is NO independent external evidence to make ANY of YOUR calls.

You are using the very same book that has NO independent external evidence to make certain claims.

Please name an independent external source that can confirm Paul was actually addressing spiritualists and believers and that GOD from heaven did reveal a secret about JESUS to Paul.


But, you have NO independent external evidence to "suppose Saul had no desire to quarrel with, or interrogate, the assailant who overpowered him".

Even in the NT Canon no one overpowered Paul, it was a BRIGHT LIGHT and a voice in his head.

mountainman

These are the first two popular fiction books containing popular fictional characters that came to mind, and as you must be aware, there are many more fiction books. Am I entitled to ask why it is that the opinion that the new testament is simply another "fiction book" is destined to be banished and to be treated in this manner?

Toto

If you want to write a coherent statement on the NT as popular fiction in the same genre as Harry Potter, with a well supported argument and examples from the popular culture of the day, please do so.

But when you just drop sarcastic comments that assert that Jesus is Harry Potter/Bilbo Baggins/Clark Kent, it lowers the tone and trivializes the discussion, and tends to drag things off topic, or would if anyone paid attention to you. And it's annoying.

mountainman

There is this inscription from antiquity, where a certain historical figure was posthumously celebrated widely for having "extinguished the faults of men" and after his reception in Heaven, he was capable of "driving out the pains of men". It might be argued that the meaning of this inscription is not markedly altered by saying that this certain historical figure was celebrated widely for having "extinguished the sins of men" and after reception in Heaven, he was capable of "driving out the sins of men".

'This man, named after Apollo,
and shining forth Tyana,
extinguished the faults of men.
The tomb in Tyana (received) his body,
but in truth heaven received him
so that he might drive out the pains of men
(or:drive pains from among men) .'

--- Ancient inscription, translated C. P. Jones

Joan of Bark

Mountainman, how do you explain The Edict of Milan?