The biggest problem facing monotheism.

[ZenMode]

There is pretty decent circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Mark are the attestations of Peter, as recorded by his companion Mark.

There are creeds and hymns in the New Testament epistles attesting Jesus' divine nature, probably dating to the 30s or 40s when the eyewitnesses were alive and in a position to challenge any writings they felt were misrepresentations or fabrications.

Instead of doing a lot of fancy dancing trying to deny what is written in the earliest Christian literature, I think the onus is on taking these claims of divinity at face value and explain them.

Why did the disciples begin to believe Jesus was divine, as far back as the earliest writings? Were they mentally ill? Did they all conspire to fabricate these stories? Did they have mass hallucinations concerning the resurrection?

Being viewed as divine wasn't uncommon back then. People believed in all kinds of gods. People believed that gods visited people on earth. People believed that there were humans who were part god/part man.

Jesus was Jewish. He was preaching that god was returning and to get ready for it. He was just one of many Jewish teachers/prophets at the time, selling his own version of things.

 

[Cypress]

As I noted before. But you seem to be playing an interesting game of "cherry picking". You wish to take the stories of the resurrection as something that people actually saw and needs to be explained by more mundane explanations. So why do you deny the OTHER miracles as being worthy of discussion?



Are you saying people might have written parts of the Gospels to fulfill religious concept needs? That they might have....made something up from time to time to serve the narrative?

Wow. I've heard that somewhere before. Oh yeah... I said it too. Many times now.

I'm gonna go with the opinion of respected atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman that the disciples 'belief in resurrection and coming to believe Jesus was divine in some way are reliable historical data points.

The question to be answered by the armchair scholar is why did the disciples genuinely believe that?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Right. People wrote things. Jesus didn't write anything.

this jarring new revelation just throws it all into question then.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Being viewed as divine wasn't uncommon back then. People believed in all kinds of gods. People believed that gods visited people on earth. People believed that there were humans who were part god/part man.

Jesus was Jewish. He was preaching that god was returning and to get ready for it. He was just one of many Jewish teachers/prophets at the time, selling his own version of things.

how do you know Jesus was jewish?

that;s just something someone wrote.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

god dammit you people are so dumb.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Being viewed as divine wasn't uncommon back then. People believed in all kinds of gods. People believed that gods visited people on earth. People believed that there were humans who were part god/part man.

Jesus was Jewish. He was preaching that god was returning and to get ready for it. He was just one of many Jewish teachers/prophets at the time, selling his own version of things.

his teaching of himself being the son of god puts him definitely in the chrstian faith.

they WROTE THAT HE SAID THAT OF HIMSELF.

if you suddenly don't trust that one writing , how can you trust any of it?

wtf?

you're very fucking stupid.

he was the founder of the christian faith and the first Christian.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

look how fucking stupid you self-hating Goyim Zionist clowns are.

tying yourself in knots to say Jesus wan't the first christian.

foolish morons.

 

[Cypress]

Being viewed as divine wasn't uncommon back then. People believed in all kinds of gods.

Agreed

People believed that gods visited people on earth. People believed that there were humans who were part god/part man.

Jesus was Jewish. He was preaching that god was returning and to get ready for it. He was just one of many Jewish teachers/prophets at the time, selling his own version of things.

Agreed that there were many Jewish apocalyptic preachers back then.

What was usual about Jesus is the movement that continued to revere him after death.

The historical context we are dealing with is that when a Jewish apocalyptic movement lost its messianic leader, it either dispersed or found a new leader.

 

[Daylight63]

I'm gonna go with the opinion of respected atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman that the disciples 'belief in resurrection and coming to believe Jesus was divine in some way are reliable historical data points.

And that's fine. But it doesn't explain why you are select only SOME of the key points to come up with justifications for them.

The question to be answered by the armchair scholar is why did the disciples genuinely believe that?

Probably because people back in tha day were far more credulous about someone being said to have been raised from the dead.

 

[Daylight63]

What was usual about Jesus is the movement that continued to revere him after death.

Clive Doyle who only recently died (2022) led the Branch Davidians after Koresh died and they revered Koresh and believe in him.

https://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471/two-decades-later-some-branch-davidians-still-believe

The historical context we are dealing with is that when a Jewish apocalyptic movement lost its messianic leader, it either dispersed or found a new leader.

Or did what the Branch Davidians did after 1993 and just keep the movement alive. People believe things that are often NOT TRUE.

Except, of course, for the people who wrote the Gospels, I guess?

 

[ZenMode]

this jarring new revelation just throws it all into question then.

That would appear to be a "you" issue.

 

[ZenMode]

how do you know Jesus was jewish?

that;s just something someone wrote.

We don't know anything for sure, but we know from Paul's writings, some of which were actually written by him.

 

[ZenMode]

Agreed

Agreed that there were many Jewish apocalyptic preachers back then.

What was usual about Jesus is the movement that continued to revere him after death.

The historical context we are dealing with is that when a Jewish apocalyptic movement lost its messianic leader, it either dispersed or found a new leader.

Being unusual isn't evidence for anything other than uncommon things can happen some times.

 

[Daylight63]

Being unusual isn't evidence for anything other than uncommon things can happen some times.

But even then it wasn't unusual. As I noted some of the Branch Davidians kept following Koresh decades after Waco.

The real key differentiator was likely the combination of Paul being a GREAT evangelist AND being part of the Roman empire.

Just because the faith "survived" more than a few decades after Christ's death is not necessarily an indicator that Christ was, indeed, a divine being.

 

[Cypress]

Being unusual isn't evidence for anything other than uncommon things can happen some times.

Well, we actually have made enormous progress. We both seem to agree that the disciples genuinely believed in the divinity of Jesus-->

Being viewed as divine wasn't uncommon back then.

I used to be faced with claims that what the disciples believed was a fabrication or legend created by people writing 70 years after Jesus died

 

[ZenMode]

Well, we actually have made enormous progress. We both seem to agree that the disciples genuinely believed in the divinity of Jesus-->

I used to be faced with claims that what the disciples believed was a fabrication or legend created by people writing 70 years after Jesus died

We don't really know what the disciples think. It's highly unlikely that any of them were literate, based on their professions as fisherman and other day laborers. We know that, at some point, whoever wrote the gospels believed that Jesus was divine.

 

[Cypress]

We don't really know what the disciples think. It's highly unlikely that any of them were literate, based on their professions as fisherman and other day laborers. We know that, at some point, whoever wrote the gospels believed that Jesus was divine.

Paul was an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses. Paul knew Peter, John, and Jesus' brother James. Paul's epistles make clear there was a standing oral and written tradition about Jesus' divine nature at least as early as the 30s or 40s AD. Just a few years after the crucifixion

Peter, John, and James were contemporaries of Paul and were in a position to challenge or correct him if he lied or misrepresented what he had been told by them.

And that's leaving aside the circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Mark is the attestation of Peter recorded by his disciple Mark.

Even the respected atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman believes it is reliable historical data that the apostles believed Jesus had been resurrected and was of a divine nature. So this isn't a Bible thumper perspective.

Rather than trying to sweep this under rug, the real question to be explained is why the apostles believed these things. I myself can think of at least four hypotheses

 

[ZenMode]

Paul was an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses. Paul knew Peter, John, and Jesus' brother James. Paul's epistles make clear there was a standing oral and written tradition about Jesus' divine nature at least as early as the 30s or 40s AD. Just a few years after the crucifixion

Peter, John, and James were contemporaries of Paul and were in a position to challenge or correct him if he lied or misrepresented what he had been told by them.

And that's leaving aside the circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Mark is the attestation of Peter recorded by his disciple Mark.

Even the respected atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman believes it is reliable historical data that the apostles believed Jesus had been resurrected and was of a divine nature. So this isn't a Bible thumper perspective.

Rather than trying to sweep this under rug, the real question to be explained is why the apostles believed these things. I myself can think of at least four hypotheses

Which book or books, that Paul actually wrote, says that Jesus is divine.

I don't doubt that some believed he was. As was mentioned before, it was common to believe that humans were god-like.

 

[Cypress]

Which book or books, that Paul actually wrote, says that Jesus is divine.

Epistle to the Philkipians 2 5:11, A hymn which claims a divine nature of Jesus

I don't doubt that some believed he was. As was mentioned before, it was common to believe that humans were god-like.

Excellent. So we have moved past the claim that the New Testament is only just later legendary accounts and fabrications, to an acknowledgment there is some real nuggets of historical data in the NT giving us insight into what the disciples said and thought.

 

[Cypress]

We know that, at some point, whoever wrote the gospels believed that Jesus was divine.

I used to think that. I thought the concept that Jesus was a divine figure was a much later literary invention of the late first century - a later legendary account of Jesus.

But upon careful study, I had to change my mind. The evidence is pretty compelling that Paul's epistles contain creeds, hymns, poems that existed well before Paul and which he copied into his letters. These pre-Pauline creeds hymns, and poems depict Jesus as divine figure, and they must date to the 30s and 40s AD, only a few years after the crucifixion.

Bottom line is that no matter how far back you dial the clock, even into the decade Jesus was crucified in the 30s AD, Christian written and oral tradition consistently depicts Jesus as some kind of divine figure.