how to prove that Jesus was divine deserve being worshipped ....??

[Abram Is Muslim]

Peace for u all,

I wished to discuss with Hoppy or any Christaian , about where Jesus showed his being divine.....??

[gmc]

You can't prove he was divine any more than you can prove allah exists. If you could prove either you wouldn't need faith and Christians and Muslims wouldn't have anything to kill each other over. That's why you cannot discuss religion with an atheist because they think the basic premise is flawed. Have fun arguing about something you will never agree on and I hope you agree to disagree.

[ekotter]

I'm grateful for the opportunity to reply to your question as best as I can. Many people in the world don't believe it is possible to know that Jesus Christ was truly real and divine. I'm not always the best with words, so here is a link to a talk (sermon) given by one of the late leaders of my church who passed away many years ago, but his words are still true and reflect my view on the subject: "The Divinity of Jesus Christ"

I'm here to testify that you, and anyone, can come to know Jesus was divine. You can't come to a full knowledge by using anything physical. You can only find out his divinity through divine means Verses 5-7.

The power of God's spirit is the way that we come to know all truth. This comes through prayer and true desire to know Jesus Christ. Jesus taught about his divinity and told about the Holy Ghost, which is the means that we come to know all truth. Christ talks about this means for knowing he is divine in John 14: 26

I have come to know to know Christ is real through the power of the Holy Ghost. It has brought peace to my soul regarding Christ's divinity. A peace that I did not imagine, and that came from a source other than my self. It came from a good and truthful source.

[gmc]

ekotter;1236171 wrote: I'm grateful for the opportunity to reply to your question as best as I can. Many people in the world don't believe it is possible to know that Jesus Christ was truly real and divine. I'm not always the best with words, so here is a link to a talk (sermon) given by one of the late leaders of my church who passed away many years ago, but his words are still true and reflect my view on the subject: "The Divinity of Jesus Christ"

I'm here to testify that you, and anyone, can come to know Jesus was divine. You can't come to a full knowledge by using anything physical. You can only find out his divinity through divine means Verses 5-7.

The power of God's spirit is the way that we come to know all truth. This comes through prayer and true desire to know Jesus Christ. Jesus taught about his divinity and told about the Holy Ghost, which is the means that we come to know all truth. Christ talks about this means for knowing he is divine in John 14: 26

I have come to know to know Christ is real through the power of the Holy Ghost. It has brought peace to my soul regarding Christ's divinity. A peace that I did not imagine, and that came from a source other than my self. It came from a good and truthful source.


You can't prove it though can you?

[ekotter]

I can understand your skepticism. It's hard to know what to believe. I just wanted to share with you how I've come to know Jesus Christ was divine. For me, a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost is enough proof.

Some people wouldn't believe in Christ unless he personally appeared to them in the flesh in all his glory and spoke with them. For some, and I'm not singling anyone out here, even this wouldn't be enough proof.

Christ has appeared: Appearance of Christ

[luciferjohn]

Abram Is Muslim;1235115 wrote: Peace for u all,

I wished to discuss with Hoppy or any Christaian , about where Jesus showed his being divine.....??


im not christian but if you have proof you dont need faith, and ther christian bible and religion is based on faith as is your religion and mine, noone knows everything everything is a matter of faith, jesus was part god part human as was hercules, ajax, titus, and the list grows, does it make his story false? or theirs? no it just means you need faith in it to believe it,i could dig out a bible and give you the verse where an angel came unto mary but why it like any other religion is based on faith, hope that helps .:-4

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Greetings,

the divinity of Jeus is eveident in the Bible. There are references to Jesus coming in the old testement and a good place is Ishia chapter 53. It tells of us being healed by his stripes ( Blood from being whipped prior to crucifixion and ressurection). Thew fact of the resurrection itself is further proof. In genises chapter one there is not just the creation of the Sun moon and stars but also another light which is Good. This too is in reference to Jesus being introduced to this universe and eternity.

The fact that over 500 people saw the ressurected Jesus and were all put to death unless they denied this is a powerful indication that it is truth as they were lilled in a variety of horrendous ways including being pulled apart by horses!

I could go on but all that is quite compelling I think

Bless you

[Bryn Mawr]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1270703 wrote: Greetings,

the divinity of Jeus is eveident in the Bible. There are references to Jesus coming in the old testement and a good place is Ishia chapter 53. It tells of us being healed by his stripes ( Blood from being whipped prior to crucifixion and ressurection). Thew fact of the resurrection itself is further proof. In genises chapter one there is not just the creation of the Sun moon and stars but also another light which is Good. This too is in reference to Jesus being introduced to this universe and eternity.

The fact that over 500 people saw the ressurected Jesus and were all put to death unless they denied this is a powerful indication that it is truth as they were lilled in a variety of horrendous ways including being pulled apart by horses!

I could go on but all that is quite compelling I think

Bless you


Proof requires corroborative evidence - quoting opinion from a single source does not provide proof, compelling or otherwise.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

The 4 gospels are not a single source though are they~?

[Bryn Mawr]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1270786 wrote: The 4 gospels are not a single source though are they~?


Yes. They are part of the New Testament as edited and put together by the Christian Church.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Indeed they are but there are 4 seperate authors in these books alone.

I note an abscxence of comment on the 500 plus people who were brutally murdered at this time which is also a historical:rolleyes: fact outside the Bible

[gmc]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1270829 wrote: Indeed they are but there are 4 seperate authors in these books alone.

I note an abscxence of comment on the 500 plus people who were brutally murdered at this time which is also a historical:rolleyes: fact outside the Bible


Well who wrote the biblical account of what happened? Why are you surprised that it was rewritten to suit those compiling it? It does make you wonder at the gullibility of those who believe it is the unchanged word of god does it not?.

[fuzzywuzzy]

whether you agree as to whether Jesus was divine or not ......he had some pretty deep and good stuff to say that a lot of people live by and they are not in jail or on your radar cause they are doing what he actually taught was right to do. It's like saying Ghandi had nothing of importance to say ......but he defeated an empire.....hello?

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

gmc;1270831 wrote: Well who wrote the biblical account of what happened? Why are you surprised that it was rewritten to suit those compiling it? It does make you wonder at the gullibility of those who believe it is the unchanged word of god does it not?.


If I am gullible what would be the point of these Gospels from each individual authors point of view? They do not take Glory upon themselves so what was in it for them?

After the death and ascension of Jesus they had lost thier fear of being persecuted and thier Faith was a minority view which was being crushed by the Romans as well as some of the Jewish people, they were a tiny minority in a hositle world.

Bless you

[gmc]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1270862 wrote: If I am gullible what would be the point of these Gospels from each individual authors point of view? They do not take Glory upon themselves so what was in it for them?

After the death and ascension of Jesus they had lost thier fear of being persecuted and thier Faith was a minority view which was being crushed by the Romans as well as some of the Jewish people, they were a tiny minority in a hositle world.

Bless you


Let me rephrase the question. What makes you think you are reading what was originally in the gospels or is what was intended by the writers and not a carefully edited version to make sure you believed what you were told to?

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the church was ever able to prove the divinity of Christ they would be out of business. If he did come back they would have a vested interest in silencing him.

[Bryn Mawr]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1270829 wrote: Indeed they are but there are 4 seperate authors in these books alone.

I note an abscxence of comment on the 500 plus people who were brutally murdered at this time which is also a historical:rolleyes: fact outside the Bible


I'd say well more than four authors - none of those books were written by a single person and all of them were edited heavily after completion.

I have not commented on your claims of hundreds murdered for not denying the resurrection as I am not familiar with the external evidence you suggest exists - could you provide a link so I can form a judgement?

[Ted]

The gospels are not biography. They are history remembered and history metaphorized. The authors never met the man Jesus of Nazareth. Borg, Crossan.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Bryn Mawr;1270915 wrote: I'd say well more than four authors - none of those books were written by a single person and all of them were edited heavily after completion.

I have not commented on your claims of hundreds murdered for not denying the resurrection as I am not familiar with the external evidence you suggest exists - could you provide a link so I can form a judgement?


Try this link for a start: Archaeology and the New Testament

[Bryn Mawr]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1270989 wrote: Try this link for a start: Archaeology and the New Testament


Tried that - no reference to the events you are describing.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Ted;1270963 wrote: The gospels are not biography. They are history remembered and history metaphorized. The authors never met the man Jesus of Nazareth. Borg, Crossan.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Critics claim that the Gospels were written centuries after the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. This would allow for myths about Jesus' life to proliferate. Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses as they claim, or were they written centuries later? The historical facts appear to make a strong case for a first century date.

Jesus' ministry was from A.D. 27-30. Noted New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, gives strong evidence that the New Testament was completed by A.D. 100.{3} Most writings of the New Testament works were completed twenty to forty years before this. The Gospels are dated traditionally as follows: Mark is believed to be the first gospel written around A.D. 60. Matthew and Luke follow and are written between A.D. 60-70; John is the final gospel, written between A.D. 90-100.

The internal evidence supports these early dates for several reasons. The first three Gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in A.D. 70. However, the fulfillment is not mentioned. It is strange that these three Gospels predict this major event but do not record it happening. Why do they not mention such an important prophetic milestone? The most plausible explanation is that it had not yet occurred at the time Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written.

In the book of Acts, the Temple plays a central role in the nation of Israel. Luke writes as if the Temple is an important part of Jewish life. He also ends Acts on a strange note: Paul living under house arrest. It is strange that Luke does not record the death of his two chief characters, Peter and Paul. The most plausible reason for this is that Luke finished writing Acts before Peter and Paul's martyrdom in A.D. 64. A significant point to highlight is that the Gospel of Luke precedes Acts, further supporting the traditional dating of A.D. 60. Furthermore, most scholars agree Mark precedes Luke, making Mark's Gospel even earlier.

Finally, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are written from A.D. 48-60. Paul's outline of the life of Jesus matches that of the Gospels. 1 Corinthians is one of the least disputed books regarding its dating and Pauline authorship. In chapter 15, Paul summarizes the gospel and reinforces the premise that this is the same gospel preached by the apostles. Even more compelling is that Paul quotes from Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18, showing us that Luke's Gospel was indeed completed in Paul's lifetime. This would move up the time of the completion of Luke's Gospel along with Mark and Matthew.

The internal evidence presents a strong case for the early dating of the Gospels.

The Date of the Gospels: External Evidence

Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses of the events, or were they not recorded until centuries later? As with the internal evidence, the external evidence also supports a first century date.

Fortunately, New Testament scholars have an enormous amount of ancient manuscript evidence. The documentary evidence for the New Testament far surpasses any other work of its time. We have over 5000 manuscripts, and many are dated within a few years of their authors' lives.

Here are some key documents. An important manuscript is the Chester Beatty Papyri. It contains most of the N.T. writings, and is dated around A.D. 250.

The Bodmer Papyri contains most of John, and dates to A.D. 200. Another is the Rylands Papyri that was found in Egypt that contains a fragment of John, and dates to A.D. 130. From this fragment we can conclude that John was completed well before A.D. 130 because, not only did the gospel have to be written, it had to be hand copied and make its way down from Greece to Egypt. Since the vast majority of scholars agree that John is the last gospel written, we can affirm its first century date along with the other three with greater assurance.

A final piece of evidence comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7. Jose Callahan discovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark and dated it to have been written in A.D. 50. He also discovered fragments of Acts and other epistles and dated them to have been written slightly after A.D. 50.{4}

Another line of evidence is the writings of the church fathers. Clement of Rome sent a letter to the Corinthian church in A.D. 95. in which he quoted from the Gospels and other portions of the N.T. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter before his martyrdom in Rome in A.D. 115, quoting all the Gospels and other N.T. letters. Polycarp wrote to the Philippians in A.D. 120 and quoted from the Gospels and N.T. letters. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) quotes John 3. Church fathers of the early second century were familiar with the apostle's writings and quoted them as inspired Scripture.

Early dating is important for two reasons. The closer a historical record is to the date of the event, the more likely the record is accurate. Early dating allows for eyewitnesses to still be alive when the Gospels were circulating to attest to their accuracy. The apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd, pointing to their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, 26:26). Also, the time is too short for legends to develop. Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves.

From the evidence, we can conclude the Gospels were indeed written by the authors they are attributed to.

From the same source:

When I am speaking with Muslims or Mormons, we often come to a point in the discussion where it is clear the Bible contradicts their position. It is then they claim, as many skeptics, do that the Bible has not been accurately transmitted and has been corrupted by the church. In regards to the Gospels, do we have an accurate copy of the original texts or have they been corrupted?

Previously, we showed that the Gospels were written in the first century, within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses, both friendly and hostile, scrutinized the accounts for accuracy.

So the original writings were accurate. However, we do not have the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies. Are these accurate, or have they been tampered with? As shown earlier, we have 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. When you include the quotes from the church fathers, manuscripts from other early translations like the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic text, and others, the total comes out to over 24,000 ancient texts. With so many ancient texts, significant alterations should be easy to spot. However, those who accuse the New Testament of being corrupted have not produced such evidence. This is significant because it should be easy to do with so many manuscripts available. The truth is, the large number of manuscripts confirm the accurate preservation and transmission of the New Testament writings.

[Ted]

That post is loaded with highly debatable "facts" "Most Scholars" is simply not true. Perhaps a wanabe but not true. Yes the relative dates for the gospels may be close but a year or two out and the prophesy of the destruction of the temple is prophesy in hindsight.

Six of the letters attributed to Paul are pseudo-Paul written long after his death by a disciple of his, likely, which was a common ancient practice.

A close reading shows that "internal consistency" is not sustainable. Differences in genealogies, the manner of Judas' death, the grandfather of Jesus, the length of Jesus ministry.

Yes there were 5000 documents used and none of them come close to going back to the original. In fact among those documents there were some 400 000 variants. I wonder which choices were the correct ones.

Then there are the redactions, the deletions, additions that the church placed in the Bible. For instance, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock . . ." cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus but is an addition by the early church.

All of the words in John attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are developing tradition and the words that the evangelist placed in the mouth of Jesus. (Borg, Crossan, Ehrman, Spong, Fox)

The author of that post quoted is engaging in wishful thinking and not honest academic research. Try "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.

Shalom

Mate:-6

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

That post is loaded with highly debatable "facts" "Most Scholars" is simply not true.

******* Who suggested that these facts are untrue? Is it the spirit of doubt who runs over the sky like clouds influenced by wind?

Should we follow them? That is an article of faith for others not true believers who are under the influence of Gods Comforter, the Holy Spirit

Perhaps a wanabe but not true. *******

Of course it is not all true. Because the True is not what, but Who. Jesus is true and if people are unaware about this “fact” these people cannot access wisdom and peace. It is the spirit of the anti Christ. Should I spend my time on discussing facts? Yes I can if you are looking for the Truth. If not perhaps I shouldn’t?

Yes the relative dates for the gospels may be close but a year or two out and the prophesy of the destruction of the temple is prophesy in hindsight.

******This prophecy in my understanding is not what you presume but the temple of the human body of Jesus Christ. By the way all dates related to ancient history are relative and are not precise. You are looking for exact times but this is pointless because Christianity is based not on the facts and dates but on revelation about who is True. Hundreds of scholars continue to argue about the dates of events throughout pre modern history

Six of the letters attributed to Paul are pseudo-Paul written long after his death by a disciple of his, likely, which was a common ancient practice.

*******

I refer to my feedback above but also add:

Paul’s letters are very useful for Christians today and encourage them to follow Jesus. They are written by God’s people who delivered to mankind the message of how to become one of Jesus’ disciples without knowing Him in person. This message is full of power for salvation and purification in God. Your words or the source of your words are not yours, but the spirit of pseudo-scientific criticism for criticisms sake it appears.

A close reading shows that "internal consistency" is not sustainable. Differences in genealogies, the manner of Judas' death, the grandfather of Jesus, the length of Jesus ministry.

***These differences are not important for believers because they have no goal to discuss missing gospels details. For example, Jesus after baptism, went to the wedding according to one Gospel account and by another was taken by the Holy Spirit in the desert and faced the temptations of satan. It is merely a case of different people recording what the first thing of significance was for each of them, the most profound and important aspects for all of us are within all 4 gospels and each of the others are important lessons. Would you expect 4 independent witnesses of one person over 3 months be able to include all salient actions?

*******

Yes there were 5000 documents used and none of them come close to going back to the original. In fact among those documents there were some 400 000 variants. I wonder which choices were the correct ones.

Of course Jesus arrival and mission was absolutely disturbing for the devil and he made sure that a lot of different people will be used to corrupt His work and His achievements. These people created a lot of documents in accordance with their (see devil) understanding of Jesus. These people are not liars they just had variable levels of understanding and personal knowledge of the Truth.

Then there are the redactions, the deletions, additions that the church placed in the Bible. For instance, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock . . ." cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus but is an addition by the early church.

******* I agree the catholic church misinterpreted this, but I now understand that the rock of the Church was Jesus not Peter – v similar in Aramaic- and that as Jesus stated a church can be 2 or 3 people gathered together in His name. Do you believe that Almighty God can’t clarify all His points to His believers by the Grace of His Holy Spirit and make sure that the main message about salvation will fail to meet these who are looking for it? I believe and have a one to one relationship with God so this information can’t stop me to be a Christian.

The Bible says nothing about worshipping Mary or Saints and only Jesus is the mediator between his Father and us

All of the words in John attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are developing tradition and the words that the evangelist placed in the mouth of Jesus. (Borg, Crossan, Ehrman, Spong, Fox)

******* A lot of facts can’t be traced back. I am sure that this is not important. Perhaps it is just that they have not yet been traced back as previous proof of the other Gospels were not so long ago

The author of that post quoted is engaging in wishful thinking and not honest academic research. Try "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.

******* The Bible is way beyond “academic research it is an organic treasure trove of God’s infinite Wisdom Power and Love. Sorry but I am not doing empty walks to the darkness of the mankind corrupted mind. I am walking in God’s light where I can see the Truth. I Pray God to show you this highest way.

What do you believe in BTW?

Bless you potential neighbour

:yh_questn