What are your arguments for the divinity of Jesus?
Just a chill guy.
It's too weird for that many testimonies to all appear around the same time about one guy who wasn't a great leader, tactician, or priest. A small time local rabbi has multiple men who swore under pain of death and torture that they saw him walk on water and return from the dead? Maybe they weren't lying.
>>18104236We are all divine beings so of course that includes Jesus.
>>18104236John 1:1
>>18104236Why do christians like to portray themselves as a baby frog with down syndrome who is getting physically comforted by a surrogate father figure?
>>18104339>A small time local rabbi has multiple men who swore under pain of death and torture that they saw him walk on water and return from the dead?We don't know the fates of any of the apostles. The church tradition says they died martyrs, but there is no evidence.
>>18104236My faith
>>18104236Philippians 2 : 5 + 6“Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage”
The basis upon which Christians believe in the deity of Christ is not any empirical evidence, nor rational proof (as these things are considered to be among philosophers) but the revelation of God. As a few have posted here this is told to us through the scriptures, which are the very words of God, their true author. If your worldview rejects the revelation of God and says that man in himself is the source of knowledge in any way then I concede you have no reason to believe it, as also you have no reason to believe in anything at all.>>18106297If a tradition is sufficiently old and close to the events it concerns it does qualify as evidence. This tradition is extremely old, and first appears in the historical record quite close to the apostolic age. This is precisely how history is done. However, what could not be denied is that the apostles were Christians, and they were well aware of what could happen to them for what they were claiming to have witnessed.
>>18104339>It's too weird for that many testimonies to all appear around the same timeThe Gospels appear decades, if not centuries, apart. We don’t even have the first “Q” Gospel.>about one guy who wasn't a great leader, tactician, or priest. A small time local rabbi has multiple men who swore under pain of death and tortureWe have very scarce evidence that any Apostles were martyred.>that they saw him walk on water and return from the dead? Maybe they weren't lying.Nearly every religion has martyrs.
>>18106382>The Gospels appear decades, if not centuries, apart. Any claim that the gospels were written centuries apart is the remarkable idiocy of the Endarkenment. The secularists have a long, proud history of being severely embarrassed about their claims since that time. There is significant internal and external evidence to place each Gospel in the first century. Your ad hoc assertion is mere ignorant prejudice. I concede they are decades apart, but the idea this somehow completely separates them in time is an anachronistic modern expectation of audio-video recordings. A few decades is not a long time in history.>We don’t even have the first “Q” Gospel.We also don't have unicorns or leprechauns or any other fictional things. There is precisely 0 evidence of the existence of Q, there are no copies, nor is it mentioned by a single ancient writer. The supposition of its existence is based entirely on the hostile speculation of modern secular opponents of the Christian faith.>We have very scarce evidence that any Apostles were martyred.See >>18106339>Nearly every religion has martyrs.How many of these heathen martyrs were martyred on the claim they witnessed their master rise from the dead?
>>18106248If you need it explained you aren’t going to understand it until you’re experiencing it.
>>18104236haha OP I love froggo XD
>>18106481This but unironically.
>>18106389Exactly. Anon has answers to every thing else as well.Christianity is the truth, You just need to examine the evidencesBut answers are not going to convince the other anon isnt is?
>>18106382>The Gospels appear decades, if not centuries, apart. We don’t even have the first “Q” Gospel.not only is that fake — since Paul's Epistles to the Romans mention the same Rufus, the father of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned in Mark 15:21 as an element of continuity in that Rufus has now become a great Christian patron, cementing Mark has having been written in his lifetime and the lifetimes of the other Apostles — but it also begs the existence of this "Q" gospel because of the similar narrative structure, rather than assume that similar narration is because of the events being relatively fresh and known to the writers, who communicated with each others frequently — again, as Paul's letters show.
>>18104236Colossians 2:91 Corinthians 10:1-4Matthew 21:6 with Psalm 8:2Philippians 2:6-7Hebrews 1:1-5 compared to Psalms 86:8 and Psalms 89:6.
>>18106828Mark is the oldest Gospel (of the big four) anyways. Do you retards know anything? I swear, it’s like arguing with middle school youth pastors. Study your own book a little bit before spouting bullshit.Mark was written during Paul’s lifetime. John may have been written literal centuries after that. Also, Paul is not referencing Mark. Many of Paul’s letters are older than all the Gospels, so the author of Mark is referencing Paul.
>>18106389>There is significant internal and external evidence to place each Gospel in the first century.There isn’t. Some were first century for sure. Others are a little more hazy.>Your ad hoc assertion is mere ignorant prejudice. I concede they are decades apart, but the idea this somehow completely separates them in time is an anachronistic modern expectation of audio-video recordings. A few decades is not a long time in history.It’s long enough for somebody to read the Book of Mark, think it’s pretty cool, and write their own version called the Book of Matthew. Which quells the whole “If it never happened, why do all 4 Gospels independently retell the same events perfectly?” Ignoring the fact that they’re not consistent across all 4 Gospels, that’s not impressive anyways. If I read the Harry Potter books and wrote a book called Parry Hotter about the same thing, that doesn’t prove Wizards are real.>We also don't have unicorns or leprechauns or any other fictional things. There is precisely 0 evidence of the existence of Q, there are no copies, nor is it mentioned by a single ancient writer. The supposition of its existence is based entirely on the hostile speculation of modern secular opponents of the Christian faith.You could actually read some literature on Q Theory instead of spouting off bullshit attacking what you think it says.>How many of these heathen martyrs were martyred on the claim they witnessed their master rise from the dead?Plenty.For example, the followers of Zalmoxis in the 5th century BCE.
>>18104339>for that many testimonies toThe Bible is literally the only contemporary text that talks about the existence of Jesus. Other sources come from over a century later and it's mostly just hearsay about what christians believed in rather than definitive proof.
>>18106930I’m not the anon you responded to. I agree Mark is the oldest gospel, but it is false that John was written centuries later as many Saints and historians were familiar with it before the 2nd century like St. Iranaeus and St. Justin Martyr to name a few.
>>18106976We do have historians like Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Granianus and Suotenis writing about him. We also have Abgar converting to Christianity as well due to a healing by an apostle.
>>18104339"It's too weird"? What, weirder than a flesh and blood human being God? >men who swore under pain of death and torture that they saw him walk on water and return from the dead?When did that happen?
>>18107018>When did that happen?In Acts.
>>18107015Josephus was the earliest historian to write about Jesus almost a whole century after his supposed death. Its what i said though, these writings are not definitive proof of anything but just hearsay of what christians believed in.
>>18107036Where?
>>18106957There really isn't any good evidence for Q, the closest you could get is that 1 Clement (I date it to the mid 60s) contains some sayings attributed to him that sound similar to what Jesus says in the gospels, although they differ slightly.Every other piece of evidence can be explained just as well by the hypothesis that Matthew redacted Mark to make Jesus an upholder of Torah observant Christianity, taking material from non-Pauline epistles (Compare James 5:12 with Matthew 5:34-37) and that Luke tried to harmonize Matthew and Mark.
>>18107051How do you think the entire concept evolved?
>>18107436>How do you think the entire concept evolved?The entire concept of what? Christianity being made up?
>>18106339>If a tradition is sufficiently old and close to the events it concerns it does qualify as evidence.How old? We only get "universal martyrdom" in the 3rd century. Paul and MAYBE peter died Martyrs, but the rest are a complete mystery and it is only claimed hundreds of years later that they died martyrs.
>>18107010>but it is false that John was written centuries later as many Saints and historians were familiar with it before the 2nd century like St. Iranaeus and St. Justin Martyr to name a few.Yes, John was likely written in the 90's, so that all fits.
>multiverse of infinite possibility >+ Dimensional planes + alternative realitiesHas to be YHVH XddddAyy lmaos from all corners of this multifaceted reality are coming to Earth just to hear about jewsTrust me in this one, I'm a demoness from another dimension Hell
