That's quite a vacuum you have there. Unfortunately Jesus didn't perform miracles in a vacuum. He represented himself as being equal to God and performed miracles. No one back then confused any of the people you are arguing could have made a claim to be equal to God, so why are you confusing them now?
First, I don't believe he represented himself as equal to God. He may or may not have claimed he was the Jew's Messiah, but that is not the same thing. Second, I think the miracles were added to his story long after he died, like his being born in Bethlehem. Theological fabrications such as the NT is filled with.
The Jewish religious leaders thought he did which is why they accused him of blaspheme multiple times and why the Babylonian Talmud recorded that he incited Israel to apostasy.
So why did the first Christians worship Jesus as God if he did not perform supernatural acts? Why was Jesus accused of sorcery if he did not perform supernatural acts? And where is your evidence that ~40 miracles were added long after he died? And by whom? And for what purpose? It seems you are starting to cozy up to the conspiracy theory you have been skirting around.
You claim they did but I'm unconvinced. They may well have considered him a spiritual leader and Messiah while he lived and came to believe he was a something more when rumors of his resurrection began to circulate. But early Christians were by no means united in their view of his divinity, some sects believing he was fully human while others considered him fully divine and others staking out a middle ground. It was these disagreements which led to the trinity. In Catholic Christianity, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Can God be fully human?
I don't doubt he was a powerful faith healer but that is not necessarily a supernatural act.
When were the books of the NT written down? Long after he died. The stories of his life circulated orally for decades and, like the game of telephone, each teller would add his own emphasis, theology, and mistakes. As I've said before, conspiracies are organized so this was not a conspiracy, just a case of theology being more important than historical fact. There are numerous instances of scribes changing the texts they transcribed, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. If you can't admit that to yourself you are being willfully blinded by your faith.
It sounds like you may be thinking of Gnostic views. These are not the disagreements that led to the explanation which became known as Trinity. One God, three personas of God.
While the year varies, Jesus was crucified around 33. The earliest books of the New Testament as we know it would have been written by Paul around 48. It is likely Mark is the earliest Gospel, written about 66. Matthew, Mark, Luke's Gospels are thought to have drawn from a source known only as Q...which is thought to have been written about 40.
There were way more voices back then than just the Gnostics:
I don't believe Mark used Q, only Matthew and Luke. John used none of synoptic gospels or Q.
I have not. I thought it was pretty much settled that this was a medieval forgery? Relics were big business back then.
The 1988 carbon dating and its subsequent cover-up is an interesting story in itself. More recent scientific testing has been done, that you might find interesting. Did you know the Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact?
I didn't. Do you think it authentic?
Absolutely. Books have been written on each, I know, I've read a few myself, but I think the summaries are accurate as far as they go.
The shroud (and its weave) has been dated back to the time of Christ. It was the type of shroud the wealthy could afford. It had pollen embedded in it from spring plants native to Israel. The man had been whipped (120 times), beaten about the face and head, crowned with a helmet of thorns (2"-4" thorns), stabbed in the side upwards towards the heart. Legs of the crucified were commonly broken. This man's legs remained whole, unbroken. Blood type, AB (the same blood type found in Communion miracles).
You have no evidence. This is what evidence looks like.
I have studied the sources of your evidence and have found them inadequate to support the fantastic claim that, not only is there a supernatural component to the natural world, but that Jesus was a major part of it. I don't know anyone who has solid evidence of the supernatural.
You have two types of evidence here, Christian and non-Christian.
My obligation has been satisfied.
Not true. He was an eyewitness
I only wrote that Paul was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life.
Reminds me of the immortal words of George W. Bush, "Mission Accomplished".
The difference being mine wasn't politically motivated. Let's hope you use that critical eye of yours in a non-selective way.
OK, I will if you will.
It's because I do that I accept the evidence that Jesus performed supernatural feats.
Do you accept all the stories in the NT or just those?
