Was Jesus a Human Being?

[ding]

So you trying to say the Bible is now a murder mystery ?

Nope. I am saying that anyone who purports to be a Christian and then concludes John had dementia and what he wrote makes no sense is suspect.

 

[alang1216]

It was not the Church at Rome, it was The Church - THE Church - in council, with all the bishops in attendance.

Christianity didn't begin with a Church, there were many independent churches, all locally run. There was no church hierarchy and no bishops, that only evolved later. Rome had the richest church and exerted its influence over others to bring them into its orbit.

THAT you will have to ask God. His ways and his reasons for doing things are his own.

OK. Seems like a fundamental bit of Christian theology but, so be it.

 

[alang1216]

That's not true, alang. Biblically orthodox protestants and Catholics are of one mind with regard to the Trinity and the persons thereof.

That may be true but it was not what I was saying. My point was that before there was a New Testament, there were no heresies. Early Christians believed there was 1, 2, 7, and even 365 gods. Some believed Jesus was only human, some believed he was completely devine. It was only after an orthodox view of theology was established, hundreds of years after Jesus, that some versions of Christianity would come to be considered heretical. No one thinks of themselves as a heretic after all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nope. I am saying that anyone who purports to be a Christian and then concludes John had dementia and what he wrote makes no sense is suspect.

Once again you never read the bible, you just parrot the church line

 

[Ringtone]

That may be true but it was not what I was saying. My point was that before there was a New Testament, there were no heresies. Early Christians believed there was 1, 2, 7, and even 365 gods. Some believed Jesus was only human, some believed he was completely devine. It was only after an orthodox view of theology was established, hundreds of years after Jesus, that some versions of Christianity would come to be considered heretical. No one thinks of themselves as a heretic after all.

Early Christians believed there were anywhere from one to 365 gods.

Are you on crack?

In any event, your talk about gods demonstrates that you don't grasp the metaphysical distinction between pagan materialism and classic theism.

As for the questions regarding the intricacies of Christology. Yes, no doubt, there were varying misunderstandings among the body, held by devoutly sincere followers doing the best to honor the truth, but what you don't seem to be aware of is that Paul, Peter, and John addressed those misunderstandings in their epistles, denouncing the various gnostic heresies. Hence, your understanding of things is incorrect. Confusion is one thing. The glaring apostasies of Gnosticism are quite another. The latter were addressed by the apoltles themselves centuries before the theological synods of the Middle Ages.

 

[harryo]

jwoodie of course he was . he was not a god or anything like that

 

[Clyde 154]

The central tenets of Christianity are that Jesus was God in human form, died on the Cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. From a logical viewpoint, I have the following questions:

1. If Jesus was a human being, he would have had 64 chromosomes, 32 from his mother and 32 from his father. The only exception would be if he was cloned from his mother. In that case wouldn't he have been female?

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

Useless "rhetorical" nonsense. The better question is "Was Adam born with a belly button?" or "How many angels can dance on the head of pin?"

You are attempting to establish a logical fallacy as truth. Why would you attempt to use the laws of physics to quantify or measure a "Supernatural" event and call it truth? Its called supernatural for a reason, its Superior to Nature.......you can't apply a physical law to an "unquantifiable" spiritual event.........unless you have your Super-Natural-0-Meter in your hip pocket.

Show us all these documented scientific experiments that have verified the Spirit Realm. If not..........how can you apply science to any event that you can't CAUSE or REPRODUCE via the application of the laws of physics..i.e., APPLIED SCIENCE?

The law of causality, aka law of cause and effect. This scientific law states that every physical event (the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus) must have an adequate antecedent (a preceding event) or simultaneous cause.

You just contradicted your own logical fallacy. You admitted that you are incapable of doing anything other than offering, speculation, conjecture and erroneous false premise. You stated "if Jesus was born human....yada, yada, yada ........" Show us any documentation from history actual or applied science that proves that Jesus was not born with the required chromosomes.

You are thus presenting a false premise that God is not capable of supernaturally forming these required chromosomes when the Bible documents that God, "......formed man (Adam) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Genesis 2:7

God can Supernaturally create man from dust......but the same God (i.e., the Holy Spirit) cannot recreate the required Chromosomes to select the gender of Christ Jesus?

Again..............You can no more disprove a Biblical Miracle than I can prove them through an application of physical law. I find truth because of the prima facie evidence in the Bible that can be measured/quantified via applied science or history actual. The Holy Bible contains but a small portion of its content to super natural events (the miraculous was used to confirm the message as coming from God)............as of yet no one has been capable of debunking the 90+% of the Bible that can be tested for truth......Thus, the eyewitness accounts (2 Peter 1:16) of these supernatural events must stand as truth until you can offer objective evidence they are not. Its called PRIMA FACIE evidence and its stands in every court in the civilized world strong enough to convict or dismiss.

Prima Facie: as it appears at first sight, as it seems at first. In other words prima facie evidence stands as legal truth (based upon eyewitness testimony) until the Prosecutor (that's you with your accusations) present the objective, testable, reproducible physical evidence that proves the circumstantial truth to be based upon error.

 

[norwegen]

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

Jesus may have been flesh and bone after his resurrection, but in what measure? Did he not already begin to transform to his divine nature again by then?

He didn't ascend to heaven, a physical place. He didn't float up into space at all; his ascension was his exultation to the Father.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Christianity didn't begin with a Church, there were many independent churches, all locally run

You are wrong, but you are also a little correct. It depends on which definition you are employing.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the head and we are the body. Christ gave all authority over THE Church to the apostles. In that sense, there is only one church.

In the other sense which you are employing, as the apostles went their different ways, communities were created, bishops were appointed, so yes, different "churches" were established, sometimes with their own ethnic charachter.

But in terms of One Body, One Lord, One Baptism, One Head Jesus Christ, there is only one Church.

And to be blunt, the authentic successors of the apostles are todays Catholic bishops and the successor of Peter in particular is the bishop of Rome.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Okay. Look up a little about those Jewish tombs, and the fact His was guarded.

Well, that'd certainly be a starting point in the investigation of who stole his body...

 

[Clyde 154]

You are wrong, but you are also a little correct. It depends on which definition you are employing.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the head and we are the body. Christ gave all authority over THE Church to the apostles. In that sense, there is only one church.

In the other sense which you are employing, as the apostles went their different ways, communities were created, bishops were appointed, so yes, different "churches" were established, sometimes with their own ethnic charachter.

But in terms of One Body, One Lord, One Baptism, One Head Jesus Christ, there is only one Church.

And to be blunt, the authentic successors of the apostles are todays Catholic bishops and the successor of Peter in particular is the bishop of Rome.

If what you conclude about Apostle Successorship is true. Where are all the MODERN DAY MIRCALES that true Apostles of Christ did to as a sign? All the Apostles of Christ from Peter to Paul (the one born out of season) where personally appointed by Jesus Christ Himself (they did not require a vote from any clergy). So you are suggesting that Jesus came down from His throne in heaven and personally appointed the first pope in the 5th century?

1. Jesus commissioned His Apostles (The very word Apostle literally means sent by Jesus) personally and promised them with an endowment of "..........power from on high" -- Luke 24:49

Here are the scriptural "qualifications" to be an Apostle of Christ, after Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide, there had to be a spiritual appointment of another Apostle, "Therefore it is NECESSARY that of the men who have accompanied us (the original apostiles) that the Lord went in and out among us (it is required of an Apostle that they had to have personally walked among the apostles with Jesus)..........BEGINNING WITH BAPTISM OF JOHN UNTIL THE DAY HE WAS TAKEN UP FROM US OF HIS RESSURECTION........."

Are you actually attempting to tell us that the man catholics call THE POPE (an apostle of Christ).........has been alive for over 2000 years? And He preforms miracles today as a sign from heaven in confirming his apostleship........such as raising the dead, healing the blind, the lame...etc.?

 

[ding]

Once again you never read the bible, you just parrot the church line

Don't be silly. I'm thinking you must be a troll, but not a very good one.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

If what you conclude about Apostle Successorship is true. Where are all the MODERN DAY MIRCALES that true Apostles of Christ did to as a sign?

There are miracles from time to time. Perhaps you need to see with the eyes of faith.

How the women who received John Paul II's miracles are living the saint's centennial

If what you conclude about Apostle Successorship is true. Where are all the MODERN DAY MIRCALES that true Apostles of Christ did to as a sign?

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

 

[Clyde 154]

There are miracles from time to time. Perhaps you need to see with the eyes of faith.

How the women who received John Paul II's miracles are living the saint's centennial





The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Its simple. Just document one miracle sense the last apostle breathed his last breath on earth. Show us a miracle whose only explanation is Supernatural in nature. (that can't be explained by the physical laws of nature). Prove to us your claim that modern Apostles are still being appointed by Jesus Christ, just as the miracles confirmed the True Apostles of Christ in the 1st century.

No deflection here folks......."see with eyes of faith". All the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles after they were " empowered from on high", were not based upon the faith of the one's witnessing the miracle or those who were receiving the miracle.

Do you know what the Bible declares about people such as yourself? "........for such are FALSE APOSTLES, DECEITFUL WORKERS (see through the eyes of faith.......really?)TRANSFORMING THEMSELVES INTO APOSTLES OF CHRIST. AND NO MARVEL FOR SATAN HIMSELF IS TRANSFORMED INTO AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.........." 1 Cor. 11:12-14

A miracle is defined in scripture as a sudden and instant interruption of the natural. (John 9). The healing of the blind man. Not a normal occurrence, immediate results, no recovery time required.

(Hebrews 2:4) A miracles is, "God also testified of it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his (the holy spirit) will."

Miracles are identified as "Signs", A mark signifying or certifying as leaving no doubt the event was from God. "Wonders"....and event to attract the attention of the people. In other words a Miracle is a force that makes signs and wonders happen. Miracles were a product of empowerment by the Holy Spirit of God, who was always behind the miraculous events.

The recording of the miracles found in the Holy Bible were there in order to cause belief in Jesus Christ (John 20:30-31)

The Bible tells us the time of miracles........signs and wonders etc., have ceased. The Miracles were a sign from God that the Apostles were teaching truth from heaven. (Heb. 2:1-4)

I can see why you refuse to demonstrate the Catholics ability to perform miracles and prove your line of Apostles as being appointed by Jesus "personally". .....and declare it takes FAITH. Faith as defined in scripture is not BLIND FAITH.......its based upon evidence, as the Christian is instructed to "test all things........." -- 1 Thess. 5:21

When I put you to the test of a True Apostle of Christ your response was....."see though the eyes of faith", instead of witnessing through your natural God given sight of reality? Really? Then, what is the purpose of signs and wonders.........if it fails to confirm the Word of God? It allows for grifters to rob and steal in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.......if we do not test the spirits.

The true Apostle's words were confirmed by the signs of an Apostle (Mark 16:20)

The time for miracles has ceased because the need for miracles have ceased. The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the apostles of the things Jesus instructed. (John 14:26). Why? Because the apostles were not ready to understand everything, so the Holy Spirit was sent to guide and instruct them. (John 16:12-13). Then the apostles wrote down and recorded the things being taught by the Holy Spirit for all future generation (2 Peter 1:3, 12-15). Once recorded (the faith had been delivered ONCE by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3)

If there is a modern day succession of Apostles.......then their teachings must be recorded in the Holy Bible as that was their purpose to deliver truth from heaven. Where are the Book of Catholic Popes? Each apostle has the authority to introduce new information from heaven and prove its from heaven through SIGNS and WONDERS. The miracles come from the Godhead......the Holy Spirit, yet you are saying THE HOLY SPIRIT must HAVE FAITH in order to believe in miracles?

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Its simple. Just document one miracle sense the last apostle breathed his last breath on earth

I gave you a video. You want more?

A total of 67 miraculous healings have been recognized at Lourdes since 1858, when 14-year-old Saint Bernadette saw the Virgin Mary in a cave.




There was a movie about Lourdes

The Song of Bernadette (1943) ⭐ 7.6 | Biography, Drama, Mystery

2h 36m | Approved

www.imdb.com

Watch the movie:

 

[jwoodie]

Its simple. Just document one miracle sense the last apostle breathed his last breath on earth. Show us a miracle whose only explanation is Supernatural in nature. (that can't be explained by the physical laws of nature). Prove to us your claim that modern Apostles are still being appointed by Jesus Christ, just as the miracles confirmed the True Apostles of Christ in the 1st century.

No deflection here folks......."see with eyes of faith". All the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles after they were " empowered from on high", were not based upon the faith of the one's witnessing the miracle or those who were receiving the miracle.

Do you know what the Bible declares about people such as yourself? "........for such are FALSE APOSTLES, DECEITFUL WORKERS (see through the eyes of faith.......really?)TRANSFORMING THEMSELVES INTO APOSTLES OF CHRIST. AND NO MARVEL FOR SATAN HIMSELF IS TRANSFORMED INTO AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.........." 1 Cor. 11:12-14

A miracle is defined in scripture as a sudden and instant interruption of the natural. (John 9). The healing of the blind man. Not a normal occurrence, immediate results, no recovery time required.

(Hebrews 2:4) A miracles is, "God also testified of it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his (the holy spirit) will."

Miracles are identified as "Signs", A mark signifying or certifying as leaving no doubt the event was from God. "Wonders"....and event to attract the attention of the people. In other words a Miracle is a force that makes signs and wonders happen. Miracles were a product of empowerment by the Holy Spirit of God, who was always behind the miraculous events.

The recording of the miracles found in the Holy Bible were there in order to cause belief in Jesus Christ (John 20:30-31)

The Bible tells us the time of miracles........signs and wonders etc., have ceased. The Miracles were a sign from God that the Apostles were teaching truth from heaven. (Heb. 2:1-4)

I can see why you refuse to demonstrate the Catholics ability to perform miracles and prove your line of Apostles as being appointed by Jesus "personally". .....and declare it takes FAITH. Faith as defined in scripture is not BLIND FAITH.......its based upon evidence, as the Christian is instructed to "test all things........." -- 1 Thess. 5:21

When I put you to the test of a True Apostle of Christ your response was....."see though the eyes of faith", instead of witnessing through your natural God given sight of reality? Really? Then, what is the purpose of signs and wonders.........if it fails to confirm the Word of God? It allows for grifters to rob and steal in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.......if we do not test the spirits.

The true Apostle's words were confirmed by the signs of an Apostle (Mark 16:20)

The time for miracles has ceased because the need for miracles have ceased. The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the apostles of the things Jesus instructed. (John 14:26). Why? Because the apostles were not ready to understand everything, so the Holy Spirit was sent to guide and instruct them. (John 16:12-13). Then the apostles wrote down and recorded the things being taught by the Holy Spirit for all future generation (2 Peter 1:3, 12-15). Once recorded (the faith had been delivered ONCE by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3)

If there is a modern day succession of Apostles.......then their teachings must be recorded in the Holy Bible as that was their purpose to deliver truth from heaven. Where are the Book of Catholic Popes? Each apostle has the authority to introduce new information from heaven and prove its from heaven through SIGNS and WONDERS. The miracles come from the Godhead......the Holy Spirit, yet you are saying THE HOLY SPIRIT must HAVE FAITH in order to believe in miracles?

Methinks thou protesteth too much. I accept the red letter portions of the Bible as being reasonably accurate, but view ex post facto commentary as human attempts to understand divine wisdom. As for miracles, I wonder why the Creator of the Universe would need to resort to the relative equivalent of cheap card tricks.

Or perhaps, as Descartes argued, the greater miracle would be that so many people believe in miracles in the first place.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Methinks thou protesteth too much. I accept the red letter portions of the bible as being reasonably accurate, but view ex post facto commentary as human attempts to understand divine wisdom. As for miracles, I wonder why the Creator of the universe would need to resort to the relative equivalent of cheap card tricks.

Or perhaps, as Descartes argued, the greater miracle is that so many people believe in miracles in the first place.

I thought he was asking for miracles from Catholic bishops.

Is he trying to disprove the Bible? Not good.

 

[jwoodie]

I thought he was asking for miracles from Catholic bishops.

Is he trying to disprove the Bible? Not good.

Do you give the same credibility to Paul's words as you do to those of Jesus?

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Do you give the same credibility to Paul's words as you do to those of Jesus?

The Bible is the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

So why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Did He demand that He be a sacrifice to Himself? It almost sounds like he was following someone else's rules.

Go back to the teaching about which Jesus was most insistent: Sins are forgiven. Turn from sin and obey God. Religious leaders of the day were insistent that Jesus had no authority to teach sins are forgiven. Jesus said he was anointed by God to bring this message, this new covenant (or testament). They said, Prove it.
Today, we take forgiveness of sins so much for granted that we hardly remember that a man died to bring us this message. He gave/sacrificed his own life to make sure the world heard and understood.

Besides his resurrection, Jesus' apostles had another sign. Jesus talked of this new covenant/testament between God and mankind--and covenants had always been sealed with blood (of animals). This one was sealed with Jesus' own blood, his sacrifice--and not because of any demand by God, other than His command that Jesus proclaim the forgiveness of sins.