Was Jesus the god that Christians say he said he was?

[aaronk1994]

Hey everyone. I would post the transcript of my video, but I didn't make one.

I will simply link the video here, so everyone can see for themselves.

Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxV1lm1Xf0M&feature=channel_video_title

 

[AronRa]

Before I respond, What is Contemporary? Is it while Jesus was alive? Does it allow for some number of years after? If so How Many?

Let me give you an example. The eruption of the volcano, Vesuvius was recorded in brilliant detail by Pliny the Younger, son of Pliny the elder, who was at least alive at the time proposed for Jesus. Pliny the elder might have been very young at the time Jesus was allegedly crucified, but he could at least have mentioned a time that was fresh in everyone's memory when there was nine hours of darkness during the day. This event does not appear to be concordant with any solar eclipse, and not one person remembered this in writing. Not in Judea, not in Rome, no one nowhere -as if it had never even happened.

Neither were there any earthquakes reported at that time, even with the relatively efficient record-keeping of the Romans stationed in the area. Neither was there any mention by anyone of the zombie-saints creeping out of their graves. That event only got a passing mention in one out of four gospels and nowhere else. Why is that? Is it because we don't know exactly when Jesus was born or when he died? Again the Romans seemed to keep some records of whom they killed, but the completely neglected to note any mention of killing the king of the Jews. Maybe if we knew exactly when Jesus was born, we could then figure out when he died, right? Well, no. Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born before the death of King Herod, which we know from history was in 4 BCE. Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born while Quirinius was ruling Syria, which began 6 CE. So Jesus was born both before 4 BCE and soon after 6 CE. Now there's a miracle birth for you!

All these people kept records of every other thing, they just couldn't remember anything whatsoever that had to do with the amazing miracles of the most important half-human god-man who ever lived. They remembered Apollonius of Tyana -who did the same things as Jesus at the same time. They even remembered the early attempts to proselytize.

"When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding the sons of Jupiter. ...And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius."
-Justin Martyr, (100-165 CE) the First Apology of Justin

It occurs to me that God would not make his 'son' to be no more than a sequel to a common human idea, and yet there is nothing attributed to Jesus that not already been credited to other half-human god-men in neighboring regions centuries earlier. Logically I think that means that either Dionysus could turn water into wine too -or Jesus couldn't really do it either.

But it gets worse, because the Bible makes a bunch of claims that evidently did not happen. Not creation, not the flood, nor the tower of Babel, or any number of other fables you might want to bring up. Not even the exodus. As I said, the only source for any of the fables in the Bible is the Bible itself. You called me a lying snake for saying that, but it is the truth, and you're about to prove that for me.

Edit: I said that Pliny the elder would have been very young when Jesus was born. I meant to say that he would have been very young when Jesus is supposed to have died.

 

[Inferno]

In addition, there was no census at that time. The census was a very important tool for the Romans, it informed them about the number of tax payers as well as the number of warriors they had. Now as Aron already correctly stated, Jesus was born both before 6BC and after 4BC... but according to the last census that happened, also before 8BC (though that was probably only in Rome itself, not the outer provinces) and a second one in 2BC. (This one was for outer regions.)

 

[AronRa]

Now as Aron already correctly stated, Jesus was born both before 6BC and after 4BC...

That's not correct. I said that Jesus was born both before 4 BCE and after 6 CE, ["AD"] which of course is still impossible. But that's what the Bible says.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Hey everyone. I would post the transcript of my video, but I didn't make one.

I will simply link the video here, so everyone can see for themselves.

Enjoy

​

First off, welcome to the forum and I fixed your video so it will show up here.

Second, I really hope you are planning to type up a response, because as I pointed out in your comments section, your video is very long and boring. I was only able to watch two or three minutes of it before I was disinterested in it. I am able to read your words faster than you are speaking them in that video. Thus, it would not take me ~15 minutes to get through a response from you.

However, I do find this argument over Jesus being apart of a three headed god or just being a son/prophet of a god rather pointless. Fun to read, but even if you were able to prove one way or the other, what happens then? Will you move on to whether the Hulk could beat the Juggernaut in a fight next? In my opinion, you are accomplishing the same thing in the former that you would be accomplishing in the latter.

 

[Inferno]

Now as Aron already correctly stated, Jesus was born both before 6BC and after 4BC...

That's not correct. I said that Jesus was born both before 4 BCE and after 6 CE, ["AD"] which of course is still impossible. But that's what the Bible says.

My bad, typo'd the numbers.

Also, hello Mr. Contributor!

 

[aaronk1994]

"However, I do find this argument over Jesus being apart of a three headed god or just being a son/prophet of a god rather pointless. Fun to read, but even if you were able to prove one way or the other, what happens then? Will you move on to whether the Hulk could beat the Juggernaut in a fight next? In my opinion, you are accomplishing the same thing in the former that you would be accomplishing in the latter."

Jesus is not a "part of" God. That is a sloppy form of the Monist heresy.

haha, AronRa is the one who made the original (pointless, according to you) point about Jesus never claiming divinity. Please take off the rose-colored glasses and complain to him about it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

"However, I do find this argument over Jesus being apart of a three headed god or just being a son/prophet of a god rather pointless. Fun to read, but even if you were able to prove one way or the other, what happens then? Will you move on to whether the Hulk could beat the Juggernaut in a fight next? In my opinion, you are accomplishing the same thing in the former that you would be accomplishing in the latter."

Jesus is not a "part of" God. That is a sloppy form of the Monist heresy.

haha, AronRa is the one who made the original (pointless, according to you) point about Jesus never claiming divinity. Please take off the rose-colored glasses and complain to him about it.

I am complaining to both of you. Arguing over mythology seems as pointless as arguing over comic book heroes. It really does not matter if you are right or AronRa is right. Just like it does not matter if The Hulk could beat the Juggernaut or not. Fantasy is fantasy, and being right over how many angels can fit on a needle's head is pointless.

 

[australopithecus]

Clearly Hulk would win.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Clearly Hulk would win.

Agreed.

 

[aaronk1994]

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

I think it is very important, as it concerns what the early Christians believed.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Aaronk1994, can you please define faith for us? In your video, if I remember correctly, you claim that faith is not belief without evidence. What is the definition of faith you are using? Because, everywhere I look, faith is defined as belief without evidence.

 

[Noth]

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

I think it is very important, as it concerns what the early Christians believed.

Do you determine what you extract from the bible and similar teachings as true based on what its ealiest proponents held to be true?
Just so we understand you correctly.
(Apologies if you mentioned this in your video, I have not seen it. The question is more generally one of interest.)

 

[brettpalmer]

Chiming in...I really think HWIN nailed it with this comment:

..I do find this argument over Jesus being apart of a three headed god or just being a son/prophet of a god rather pointless. Fun to read, but even if you were able to prove one way or the other, what happens then?

But Noth's question is important in pressing aaronk:

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

I think it is very important, as it concerns what the early Christians believed.

Do you determine what you extract from the bible and similar teachings as true based on what its ealiest proponents held to be true?
Just so we understand you correctly.
(Apologies if you mentioned this in your video, I have not seen it. The question is more generally one of interest.)

Just which "early" Christians is aaronk referring to? Earliest, or just one of the early?

 

[brettpalmer]

This is another important question that begs for an answer:

Aaronk1994, can you please define faith for us? In your video, if I remember correctly, you claim that faith is not belief without evidence. What is the definition of faith you are using?

 

[brettpalmer]

Two thoughts that came up today:

1.) In aaronk's search for what the "early" Christians believed about Jesus's divinity (or lack thereof), what does Paul, in his authentic epistles, say? How is Jesus defined there? Is his Christology as developed as John's?

2.) I watched aaronk's video and I'm still confused. I'll admit, it's a subject I never had any great grasp of (nor cared much for): the Trinity. So, if I'm following correctly, there is one "essence" (whatever that means; aka "God") of which three persons (whatever that means, too; aka "Yahweh," "Jesus," and the "Holy Spirit") which "partake" (again, whatever that means) of this single "essence." And that is why Jesus doesn't claim to be "Yahweh" because "Yahweh" is a separate "person" of this single divine "essence" from which he and the other two "partake." Jesus could no more say "I am Yahweh" than aaronk can say "I am thepuppyturtle." But both aaronk and TPT breath the same air. Do I have that right?

 

[aaronk1994]

"Aaronk1994, can you please define faith for us? In your video, if I remember correctly, you claim that faith is not belief without evidence. What is the definition of faith you are using? Because, everywhere I look, faith is defined as belief without evidence."

The greek for faith (as used in the New Testament) is pistus. Pistis, according to Strong's Concordance, translates to belief, trust, confidence etc, not "belief without evidence".

Additionally, theologians (actual authorities on theology) universally reject the Dawkinsian definition as made-up and not applicable to any Christian denomination. Take this quote from Allister McGrath:

"But why should anyone accept this ludicrous definition? What is the evidence that this is how religious people define faith? Dawkins is coy at this point, and adduces no religious writer to substantiate this highly implausible definition, which appears to have been conceived with the deliberate intention of making religious faith seem a piece of intellectual buffoonery. I don't accept this idea of faith, and I have yet to meet a theologian who takes it seriously. It cannot be defended from any official declaration of faith from any Christian denomination. It is Dawkins' own definition, constructed with his own agenda in mind, being represented as if it were characteristic of those he wishes to criticize."



"In aaronk's search for what the "early" Christians believed about Jesus's divinity (or lack thereof), what does Paul, in his authentic epistles, say? How is Jesus defined there? Is his Christology as developed as John's?"

Yes.

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." - Colossians 2:9

"So, if I'm following correctly, there is one "essence" (whatever that means; aka "God") of which three persons (whatever that means, too; aka "Yahweh," "Jesus," and the "Holy Spirit") which "partake" (again, whatever that means) of this single "essence." And that is why Jesus doesn't claim to be "Yahweh" because "Yahweh" is a separate "person" of this single divine "essence" from which he and the other two "partake." Jesus could no more say "I am Yahweh" than aaronk can say "I am thepuppyturtle." But both aaronk and TPT breath the same air. Do I have that right?"

Not quite. Yahweh is the essence or being of God. He is not a single person. Jesus IS Yahweh. You may have misunderstood my video.

 

[Inferno]

I don't really care much for this discussion, but aaronk1994, I'd like you to elaborate on one point.

The greek for faith (as used in the New Testament) is pistus. Pistis, according to Strong's Concordance, translates to belief, trust, confidence etc, not "belief without evidence".

Additionally, theologians (actual authorities on theology) universally reject the Dawkinsian definition as made-up and not applicable to any Christian denomination. Take this quote from Allister McGrath:

"But why should anyone accept this ludicrous definition? What is the evidence that this is how religious people define faith? Dawkins is coy at this point, and adduces no religious writer to substantiate this highly implausible definition, which appears to have been conceived with the deliberate intention of making religious faith seem a piece of intellectual buffoonery. I don't accept this idea of faith, and I have yet to meet a theologian who takes it seriously. It cannot be defended from any official declaration of faith from any Christian denomination. It is Dawkins' own definition, constructed with his own agenda in mind, being represented as if it were characteristic of those he wishes to criticize."

You state that "faith" is not "faith without evidence". As I've told dotoree/TruthIsLife7, I will agree with you, but only under one condition: You provide some actual evidence. Not only evidence that a God exists, but also that this God is your God.

Dawkins isn't "making up his own definition", he's simply making an observation: No evidence put forward for the existence of a God is evidence. Sometimes it's extremely bad evidence to the point where you can disqualify it (for example "I've seen the Virgin Mary") or it can't even be considered evidence, no matter what definition you use. (for example "God exists because the Bible says so")

Never have I, nor probably anyone on this forum, come across anything that can be accepted as evidence for the existence of a God.

So here's my very simple challenge: Name one, only one, piece of evidence that proves the existence of a God.
If you can do that, I will accept your definition of faith.

Until then, "faith" will mean "belief without evidence" while "belief" will mean "belief because of evidence". Even those are crappy definitions, but then again there is no word for "accepting and believing because of evidence". Acceptance comes closest, but that implies "grudgingly". I put forward "accieve", a combination of "accept" and "believe", but I doubt it will catch on.

 

[aaronk1994]

Apparently, Christians aren't allowed to define their own terms.

You do not define Christianity with an American English dictionary. You define it with the Bible, and the Bible doesn't support Dawkins' definition.

Theologians reject his definition, as I mentioned before.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Apparently, Christians aren't allowed to define their own terms.

You do not define Christianity with an American English dictionary. You define it with the Bible, and the Bible doesn't support Dawkins' definition.

Theologians reject his definition, as I mentioned before.

)O( Hytegia )O([/url]"]Also, could you define the term "Faith" once more - and especially that evil Bible Concordances that specifically state that Faith is

- In the belief of those things which we do not see. ... He has confidence in these, and in kindred truths, and he acts as if they were real.

For we walk by faith, and not by sight. Faith is a grace which answers many useful purposes; it is the eye of the soul, by which it looks to Christ for righteousness, peace, pardon, life, and salvation; the hand by which it receives him, and the foot by which it goes to him, and walks in him as it has received him; which denotes not a single act of faith, but a continued course of believing; and is expressive, not of a weak, but of a strong steady faith of glory and happiness, and of interest in it: and it is opposed to "sight": by which is meant, not sensible communion, but the celestial vision: there is something of sight in faith; that is a seeing of the Son; and it is an evidence of things not seen, of the invisible glories of the other world; faith looks at, and has a glimpse of things not seen, which are eternal; but it is but seeing as through a glass darkly; it is not that full sight, face to face, which will be had hereafter, when faith is turned into vision.

-of those things which we hope for, not having God presently in our physical view.

For we cannot clearly see him in this life, wherein we walk by faith only: an evidence, indeed, that necessarily implies a kind of seeing him who is invisible; yet as far beneath what we shall have in eternity, as it is above that of bare, unassisted reason.

(In reference to "We walk by Faith, not by sight" ; 2 Corinthians 5:7)

Can I go on, or are the Biblical Scholars, whom you claim all use this definition, not actually Christians by your definition?

Faith: Belief in things not seen and walking in the knowing that God is there, actively, above non-Christian reasoning.

I went to Sunday School when I was a kid, too.

I do not see much rejecting there.

So faith is "belief, trust, confidence etc" based off what? If I had faith that aliens were going to land in my yard, is that an example of pistus or blind faith? How would you prove the difference? Just like next weekend, I have faith that the 49ers will beat the Giants. Is that an example of blind faith or pistus?