aa5874

The Canonical NT cannot be used to show Jesus was only human. The Canon is clear about the nature of Jesus the God/man. Trying to look at isolated and ambiguous verses cannot reverse the fundamental description of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

The Pauline writer claimed multiple times that Jesus was raised from the dead and also claimed that if Jesus was not raised from the dead that mankind would still be in their sins.

Unless there is some other credible historical source of antiquity that can show that Paul believed or claimed Jesus was just a man, then ApostateAbe is engaged in futility or simply wasting time.

All the books of the Canonical NT support a GOD/MAN.

A GOD/MAN is a mythological entity.

ApostateAbe

OK, my time range for "early Christianity" may be more narrow than your time range. My time range is the first 100 years after the ministry of Jesus. The development of gnosticism and the belief that Jesus was merely spiritual seemed to be well after that, I didn't mean to imply that there were no such people pre-Nicene, and you are right.

Kapyong

Gday,

It never fails.

When pressed about the existence of Jesus, the faithful ALWAYS bring up evolution !


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Rubbish.

The docetics thought Jesus was a phantom.

Some Christians claimed Jesus did NOT "come in the flesh" (e.g. in 1 John.)


K.

aa5874

What historical source can show that your Jesus actually started a ministry and what historical source can show the time range that your Jesus actually lived and the time he started a ministry?

You have no credible history of any character called Jesus Christ except he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God who walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

Now, the term "early Christianity" does not mean that there were Jesus believers before the Fall of the Temple. The word "Christ" predated Jesus. There would have been "early Christians" without a character called Jesus.

Justin Martyr CLEARLY wrote that there were people called Christians since the time of the Emperor Cladius who worshiped Simon Magus, the magician, the Holy one of God.

The only source external of the NT and the Church writings that mention Jesus Christ are forgeries in Josephus.

Until you can provide some external credible historical source for your Jesus you are only wasting time.

The Canonical NT and Church writings are all about a GOD/MAN born of the Holy Ghost of God and a virgin Mary without a human father who was raised from the dead to save mankind from sin.

rob117

For argument's sake, let's say that Christianity died out in Roman times, and became a historical footnote. And let's say all we had were the few early Classical references to him (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus with or without sectarian interpolations, possibly Suetonius), and no gospels.

I don't think we'd be vociferously arguing whether this "Jesus" character actually existed. We'd probably accept his existence as a working hypothesis, because it simply seems more reasonable that human (in our sources) cult figure who is based in recent (to our sources) history was an actual man. We have done the same for the Buddha, for example, but he belongs to another culture so it's not as big of a deal to us. Being infidels in the West, many of us (although not me personally) were raised as Christians and so Jesus is the figure we are actively rebelling against by our unbelief. We thus have more of a vested interest in debunking him than non-believers from other cultures.

I guarantee you that atheists in Japan do not focus on the question of whether or not Jesus existed.

mountainman

One very well educated Roman Emperor thought that this phantom Jesus was found by the Warlord Constantine in his life of pleasure and incontinence:

As for Constantine, he could not discover among the gods
the model of his own career, but when he caught sight of
Pleasure, who was not far off, he ran to her. She received
him tenderly and embraced him, then after dressing him in
raiment of many colours and otherwise making him beautiful,
she led him away to Incontinence.

There too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with
her and cried aloud to all comers:

"He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer,
he that is sacrilegious and infamous,
let him approach without fear!
For with this water will I wash him
and will straightway make him clean.

And though he should be guilty
of those same sins a second time,
let him but smite his breast and beat his head
and I will make him clean again."

mountainman

The wretched Eusebius is apologists' ONE and ONLY SOURCE.

show_no_mercy

I don't know... we have hints in 2 Corinthians that some Christians were preaching some "other Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4). Usually statements like that are reactions against some form of "heretical" belief. When exactly 2 Corinthians was written I don't think has been firmly established, other than the circularity of basing it on Acts of the Apostles.

Other than that, the epistles of John and the gospel associated with John also have polemics against Christians who believed that the Christ did not come in the flesh, which are both traditionally dated to within 100 years of Jesus' traditional ministry. Modern Christians take this as an attack on Docetism, but might have also been an attack on the Separatists -- those who separated the Christ spirit from the man Jesus; who worshipped the Christ spirit which was the son of god and didn't care about the human being Jesus which the Christ spirit had possessed at the Jordan. Hence the simple word change from "into" (εις) in Mark 1:10 implying spirit possession to "upon" (επ) in Matthew 3:16.

aa5874

But, that is not the situation right now. No need to speculate. The extant information of antiquity CLEARLY depicts Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

No-one NEEDS speculate about Romulus and Remus being human. The extant information of antiquity CLEARLYpresented them as mythological entities.

Why is it not necessary to speculate that Achilles was human? Simply because he was presented as a mythological entity.

It is exactly the same with Jesus, those who worshiped Jesus as a God or wanted people to worship him as a God provided all the details of his mythological divinty.

It is only necessary to believe Jesus did exist since an actual existence as a mere man would still require belief that he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God born of a virgin without a human father.

The activities and events of Jesus as presented in the NT and Church writings only requires belief, a human Jesus is irrelevant. A human cannot be raised from the dead and ascend through the clouds.