Was Jesus a Human Being?

[ding]

Maybe you need to dig deeper? Contemporary scholarship largely agrees that Gnosticism has Jewish Christian origins, originating in the late first century AD in nonrabbinical Jewish sects and early Christian sects.

The point is the basis of heresy. That origin has nothing to do with the NT. So your assumption that the heresy was based upon what was not included in the canon is false. It had to do with them not being able to reconcile the "apparent" violence of the OT with the Good News. The Gnostic's error had nothing to do with the Good News. It had to do with their inability to interpret the OT. You literally have that same problem.

 

[alang1216]

The point is the basis of heresy. That origin has nothing to do with the NT. So your assumption that the heresy was based upon what was not included in the canon is false.

Can there be a heresy with an orthodoxy?

It had to do with them not being able to reconcile the "apparent" violence of the OT with the Good News.

The 'apparent' violence of the OT is well documented in the OT. How do you reconcile genocide and other atrocities (at least that's how they seem to me) with a loving God? Which does he love more, His justice or His people?

The Gnostic's error had nothing to do with the Good News. It had to do with their inability to interpret the OT. You literally have that same problem.

You presume the Gnostics were in error. What do you base that judgement on? Maybe the problem is your inability to interpret the OT?

 

[ding]

Can there be a heresy with an orthodoxy?


The 'apparent' violence of the OT is well documented in the OT. How do you reconcile genocide and other atrocities (at least that's how they seem to me) with a loving God? Which does he love more, His justice or His people?


You presume the Gnostics were in error. What do you base that judgement on? Maybe the problem is your inability to interpret the OT?

I really can't add anything more than I have already explained to you. I would just be repeating myself.

 

[alang1216]

I really can't add anything more than I have already explained to you. I would just be repeating myself.

In your mind I'm sure you have. Thanks for playing.

 

[ding]

In your mind I'm sure you have. Thanks for playing.

Actually it's a matter of public record.

 

[OneIsTheWord]

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?

greeting
what you said is cutie
the word says that Jesus was born of a woman Mary See Galatians 4:4, conceive by the shadow of the Holy Spirit you can say See Luke 1:35
Jesus was all human and all G-d see John 1:14
Heaven is a physical place? See Luke 23: 33-43
Some humans will live on earth and some in heaven see John 3:3
a picture of the resurrection of what to come more or less see Matthew 17:1

Jesus came for sinners see 1 John 2:2
Jesus did not come for righteous people See Luke 5: 32
In 1 Peter 3: 15 you ask a question?

 

[jwoodie]

Those who believe without seeing are blessed.
Those who believe without understanding are stupid.

 

[DudleySmith]

Re the thread title there is zero reason to beleive he wasn't a real person. Even the pseudo-intellectual Bert Ehrman says he was an actual real person.