Divinity of Jesus Christ

[Papewaio]

What do you mean Faith not reason what you talkin about. faith is Weak it is flimsy without Proof and Reason. If im a muslim with just faith i would get torn apart by atheists. but you see We have Reasoning, We have Evidence, to support Faith.

Meh, believe in what you want.

Faith, Belief and Love, the most important of thes is Love.

=][=

Don't worry atheists are quite happy to tear apart any faith... it's just some of them are more local and accessible to start with like one's family and friends.

Except most of us know that you can't disprove God using science. You can only prove something exists, not disprove a non-existence... kind of the Black Swan issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't worry atheists are quite happy to tear apart any faith...

I am as hardcore atheist as you can get, but I purposely go out of my way not to tear apart any mainstream faith. I have my beliefs and others have theirs. Also, I have noticed that some people just can't handle life without religion, why try to take it away from them when it helps them so much? I don't see any sort of coherent, consistent, secular moral philosophy that provides the kind of "right" and "wrong" that many people need and take from religion, (so relativism is out). So there isn't anything I can preach to them to replace religion, if I wanted to anyway.

[Major Robert Dump]

I LOLd when I saw the OP say he has proof and evidence.

[rory_20_uk]

So, we have to start off from the premise that everything in the bible is 100% accurate, and everything else is utterly irrelevant? All the other gospels, epistles, letters and what not. Almost arguing about what words are in a dictionary after 80% of the pages have been torn out.

Jesus Christ is merely bringing together two threads of Christianity, one lot who viewed Iesus as a modern day prophet and the other lot who viewed Christ as divine. A compromise / fudge that would make modern day politicians proud.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, we have to start off from the premise that everything in the bible is 100% accurate, and everything else is utterly irrelevant? All the other gospels, epistles, letters and what not. Almost arguing about what words are in a dictionary after 80% of the pages have been torn out.

Well, no. On the other hand, what's actually in the Bible, excusing Revelations, is the earliest stuff with a reasonable authorial attribution. The only book that might be earlier is Thomas, but that doesn't contain anything massively controversial from what we have seen of the surviving fragments.

Jesus Christ is merely bringing together two threads of Christianity, one lot who viewed Iesus as a modern day prophet and the other lot who viewed Christ as divine. A compromise / fudge that would make modern day politicians proud.

Now this is just nonsensicle, "Jesus Christ" simply denotes the recognition of the man Jesus being annointed by God, which is merely a recognition of his status as a prophet in the line of Moses, Samuel and David. It does not denote divinity. The argument you refer to is the one over whether Jesus should be worshipped as seperate from God, or as the same as God. In this way the Trinitarian formulation is a compromise which, ultimately expresses the relationship as beyond human comprehension, rejecting either absolute option.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, no. On the other hand, what's actually in the Bible, excusing Revelations, is the earliest stuff with a reasonable authorial attribution. The only book that might be earlier is Thomas, but that doesn't contain anything massively controversial from what we have seen of the surviving fragments.

Merely that things are not earlier (and we are already talking tens if not hundreds of years for this allowed "early" stuff) doesn't mean that other sources wern't early, merely that earlier versions have been destroyed in one of the church's early book burning activities - hence not allowed as evidence it could be allowed has been destroyed. Rather similar to tearing out parts of a dictionary before using it as a source of information. I believe that a lot of the Dead Sea material is from a similar period of time.

Creationism makes sense if you are allowed to destroy everything that contradicts it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Merely that things are not earlier (and we are already talking tens if not hundreds of years for this allowed "early" stuff) doesn't mean that other sources wern't early, merely that earlier versions have been destroyed in one of the church's early book burning activities - hence not allowed as evidence it could be allowed has been destroyed. Rather similar to tearing out parts of a dictionary before using it as a source of information. I believe that a lot of the Dead Sea material is from a similar period of time.

We are only talking about decades, in the field of classical biography and historiography that's pretty good going. There is, for example, no history of Alexander the Great surviving from before the second century AD, and no account is known to have been written until several decades after his death. So Paul's letters and the Canonical Synoptic Gospels are likely to have been the earliest coherent books. That doesn't mean there weren't earlier written accounts, but you tend to only systematise information once the people who lived through the events in question have died. In this case Mark is about 30 years after Jesus died, Matthew and Luke between 40 and 50 and John 60-70. It is entirely possible that the younger actors who lived through those events were still alive when Mark, Matthew and Luke were writing, so the likelyhood of blatent fakery and construction is actually fairly low.

As to "Book Burning", do you have any evidence of Christians systematically destroying books prior to the 4th Century? Given that the tradional canon was already basically in place by this point, with only minor revisions, can you demonstrate any underhand supression at all, aside from anachronising later medieval practice when putting down heretical movements?

Creationism makes sense if you are allowed to destroy everything that contradicts it.

sure, but most of the non-Canonical works have survived, they sit on my bookself in a volume thicker than my Bible, even the 2nd Century ones are hardly Earth shattering, a few of the much later ones are a bit wierd, but so what. It's like reading the Book of Mormon and going "Ah-ha!" Christianity's truth has been horribly supressed, which irrc not even the Book of Mormon claims.