Is Jesus divine?

An unsubstantiated opinion by an anonymous person is not evidence.

If the anonymous person can give evidence supporting his opinion, the opinion can be taken seriously and analyzed. If the anonymous person actually gave factual information based upon what he saw, that would be evidence. The weight the evidence carried would depend on several factors.

But no, all you gave was an unsubstantiated opinion by an anonymous person.

 

Enjoy....
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/who-wrote-johns-gospel
https://issueswithjohn.com/john-vs-the-synoptics/

 

Edna, perhaps you should do a little more digging. Different people almost always give different accounts. Maybe give this a try.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...john-commentary-who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john/

 

What on earth has engineering to do with it. And the Bible is supernatural? What world do you live in. I've given you enough evidence to prove otherwise but you prefer to remain in you ignorance. Blind belief.

 

Matthew 10:14 New International Version 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

 

All you really need is to look for yourself and you will find it’s true. Go through the list one by one and itemize the entries that are wrong.

 

Again reality isn't your strong point. All you have are words in a book. Christian doctrine of today comes from the 4th century CE when Constantine called all bishops to Nicea to come to agreement on Jesus, the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. The churches of the towns and surrounding areas of the time had their own Bishops. There was no central ruling council. Each Bishop had different ideas. Some didn't accept Jesus as divine, Some didn't accept the trinity, some didn't accept the Holy Spirit. They all preached different things. Constantine brought most of them to Nicea to agree a central doctrine. Most agreed on todays doctrine - two didn't and were removed. So what the Church has taught until today was a general concensus of what to believe - just mans decision.
Paul could not convince his people - the Jews, so he turned to the Greeks. And few realise that he used Greek Philosophers to convince the Greeks to accept Jesus. He compared earlier Greek Philosophers sayings to what he was saying. When talking to the Athenianshe begins by saying, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24). Paul is drawing from Seneca, the prominent Roman Stoic philosopher, who wrote, “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high…the whole world is the temple of the immortal gods.” He does this time and again. Paul was taught Greek philosophy as well as Jewish/Christian philosophy by Gamaliel whose pupils included Greek students.
What I posted about the effects of the Crucifixion of the body is fact. Ask any specialist as I have done. Do you actually know how the body functions?

 

And that reference was to the Jews. And just like your previous companion you answer no question but criticise everything I post. What does tha t say about you.

 

You really have an imagination. Peter and James maintained the Church in Jerusalem. Paul and others spread the Word throughout the known world. Paul knew better than to waste time with those who mocked what he knew to be true.....much like yourself.

 

My first introduction and relationship with God did not come from a book or recitation or from flesh in any form, not even my own, but from Gods spirit. Everything you rehearse is based on a book, from others recitations, and your own conclusions. God sent his spirit to me to know me and to awaken me to a remembrance of him. It did not come from reading, hearing, or myself. It was right out of the blue, like a hawk to its prey. And I saw that true life is in his spirit, rather than in myself or my life alone. I know that God lives. I know that scriptures cannot make one a man of God, anymore than eating raw meat can make one a lion. One must first be that thing, either a lion or a man of God, according to the will and power of God, before the provision is of any rightful effect. Otherwise it is vanity. And the vanity of man is no discourse on the absence of God, but of mans separation from and rejection of him. This is true. You can put your filter of disbelief on what I said and turn my words into something else, so that you may conveniently discard your own distortion. But it doesn't change the truth. I know what I'm talking about.

 

I will second your experience. Somehow I I knew a decision took place inside me. The Spirit brought to mind all the truthful testimony that had been shared with me through out my youth. It had been a "rocky road" but when the decision came to be made......a team of wild horses could not have drug me away. Not to say I don't fail from time to time, but I never look back! You can't describe things of the "Spirit" and expect others to accept unless that same "Spirit" is also tugging at their heart and they are receptive. In my experience it was a multitude of witnesses. There are two right here!!

 

The Church in Jerusalem disappeared before the Roman took Jerusalem. The disciples had dispersed and we have little knowledge of where they went - except by traditions which are rather unreliable. For instance there are seven different ways in which Matthew is reported to have died - and where. Now that would be a miracle. Even Peters death is 'by tradition'. Paul went to the Greeks but never gave up on his own entirely. He often sought out Jews when he travelled and when he went to Rome as a prisoner. The early church was formed in Asia Minor largely by Paul comparing Greek Philosophy to his own Judaistic/Christian philosophy. However - as I said before - Bishops had their own ideas of what Chrisatianity entailed. This is evident when Constantine called the Nicea 'convention'.
Paul’s knowledge of Greek philosophy and literature is clearly seen in Acts 17:16-34 when he encountered Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens. As Paul engages them in a conversation in an attempt to introduce them to the resurrected Christ, he uses quotes from their own philosophers as a way to connect with them and as springboard to point them to Christ. Paul in his tactfulness quoted shadows of truths found in their own philosophers to “declare” that in Christ is found more than shadows of truth but the full Light of God’s Truth (Acts 17:23). Dr Dan Merritt
Paul often uses Greek Philosophy.

 

That's your interpretation and if that satisfies your need, so be it. Others find satisfaction in other things are are 'transformed' by their practise.

 

I think Paul's method of reaching others is beneficial for all Christians to know. God gave him a great deal of wisdom as shown in the "Temple of the Unknown God" "Here I'll tell you all about this one"....(.after he listened to their own assertions) Then he told them about Jesus.

I am so thankful I've never been caught up in Church traditions and the variations they pronounce to form the different denominations.

 

But you have. It is only by 'tradition' that Jesus was the Son of God. There is no proof, only what the Church teaches. As I've shown you, the Nativity stories are wrong. that 'tradition' is wrong. The Crucifixion story as recorded in the Bible is 'garbled' and we hsve 2 versions both which go against the actions of the human body. If Jesus was actually a man the conversations from the cross could not have occurred. the pain and agony of just trying to breathe would have prevented it. All this is ignored when and Ministers blithely preach the Gospel from the pulpit of Jesus suffering reality fades into the background. . You can believe what you want but if you want the truth it is there for you to find. On real study the nativity stories prove nothing except fabrication.

 

It's amazing you spend so much time attacking those of faith, The scriptures bear witness to themselves. Don't need you or anyone else to set the record straight!

 

There is another testimony of Jesus Christ as a companion book to the Bible. It's called The Book of Mormon.

 

Superstitious pagans have always had an obsession with attacking Christianity; it's obvious superiority to assorted cults, fables, juvenile atavism, etc. is a threatening thing, especially to sociopaths and criminally inclined deviants.

 

I can't speak for believers, they have a different experience. My reading of it as an atheist interprets Jesus as a 'son of man', a real human being, and not divine in himself, until after his death, and became 'divine' the same way other humans become divine, by belief. The time between his birth and death hes was definitely human. That was kind of the whole point of his ministry, empathy with humans. His ministry ties up a lot of lose ends generated by the wandering away from the Hebrewism of Moses and the written Torah by the Babylonian Temple scam and Ezra's turning Judaism into what became a racist cult, centered around Babylonians via their coziness with Cyrus.

There were no great Prophets after the Exile, and some of the books, like Haggai, are obviously artificial and shallow, and shouldn't be considered 'canon' by anybody. The writing is low quality and rather infantile compared to the pre-Ezra writings, they don't follow the same literary style and techniques of previous works.The earlier parts of Daniel are probably legit, the main exception imho..They seem to be mostly pro-Babylonian propaganda and self-justification.

 

and Mormons contend it "super cedes" the Bible. Christians have a problem with that.

 

The "only begotten Son".

 

I don't. They both teach of Jesus Christ and support each other.

 

Jesus told us however "I will go and prepare a place for you." Didn't say I will prepare a planet for you where you will become god like me.

 

It makes no mention of that in the Book of Mormon either. You are referring to doctrinal matters of the restored Church, which is what LDS believe their Church to be.. What you quoted in the New Testament wasn't mentioned in the old testament either. It's all about expansion. Same God, bigger picture. Your problem is you're stuck in the mindset of traditional man made comprehension of the gospel. When we're born we're toothless and told to drink. Then we're given baby teeth and told to eat some things. Then we're given a full set of big teeth and told to eat everything. Are they different Gods in competition, or one God bringing us along to something more.

 

I just don't have any regard for Joseph Smith. That's all.