Keep in mind that I'm not a Christian and I'm not defending Jesus's ostensible divinity.

But it seems like all that you skeptics can muster is that the passages in question are "ambiguous". You then back this up by alluding to the chaotic hermeneutical history of Biblical scholarship and translation, which is known by all and which really has nothing to do with this issue because we are only talking about the everyday, household, King James version of the Bible that every Ma and Pa in Wisconsin have under their remote controls. If this bears no relation to the original texts (let alone to the reality of what occurred out there in those deserts 2,000 years ago), then that's another topic.

If Jesus didn't claim divinity for himself, then why did eleven of the twelve apostles, who knew him and who survived his death, get together with Paul and spread the word that Jesus was God incarnate? You might reply that this still doesn't constitute a quotation from Jesus to the effect that he saw himself as the Son of God. But this doesn't matter. The apostles, who lived and ate with Jesus, spread the word to the Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was divine. They also held that they physically witnessed his Ascension and spoke with his resurrected person.

Were they lying? Perhaps. Did later generations forge their accounts? Perhaps. But we are solely concerned here with a scriptural justification for Christ's divinity.

How about when Jesus spoke from heaven, in Acts, and told Paul to start proselytizing for him? Here sits Jesus, at the right hand of God, as David prophesied, miraculously converting Paul. And you still want to deny scriptural legitimization of his divinity? Give me a break.

We are looking here for *scriptural* proof that Jesus considered himself divine. Apart from the entire Gospel of John--which I defy anybody to read and then to come back and tell me that this book is not solely devoted to the claim that Jesus was divine--I have mentioned another insuperable obstacle to all of you skeptics. The people who talked with him thought that he considered himself divine.

Oh, and:

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

Why would Jesus not have contradicted Thomas if Thomas was off-base in calling him his God? The answer is plain: Jesus considered himself divine.

It's fun to poke holes, but face the facts. The New Testament provides much evidence for the doctrinal claim that Jesus considered himself the Son of God.

tmidgett wrote:I like the part about him rising from the dead.

If you are dead

and entombed in a cave

and the entrance is blocked by a rock

and someone finds that the rock has been rolled away

and your corpse is no longer there

then obviously you have risen from the dead!

I mean, that's the easiest explanation. Not graverobbers followed by hungry wolves or anything like that.

Well, that wasn't the only proof. If we are to believe the Gospel of John, Jesus actually came back and spoke and ate with the Apostles after the Resurrection and before the Ascension.

Much of the Bible contradicts itself, so scripture is not the most trustworthy source in the world.

Even if it never contradicted itself, it wouldn't be trustworthy (as far as being factually accurate). The Gospels were written at least 50-75 years after Jesus' death, by second or third hand accounts. Who were these authors, and what if anything do we know about their integrity and reliability? (Not to mention the centuries of editing the Bible).

Isn't it much more likely that the Bible (NT and OT) was written by religious leaders with an agenda? And/or fabricated, based on mythology, some real history, etc?

Are any religious scriptures "trustworthy"?

By the way, "Who Wrote the Bible" is a very fascinating book (though it's about the OT/Hebrew Bible, not the Gospels).

there is much material to digest on this subject. the questions that have been raised and subsequent answers are fundamental elements of the history of the church. just review the material about the seven ecumenical councils and you'll see that the divinity of Jesus has always been a matter of discussion.
at this point here on this board, the debate has been limited to two points which exist at opposite ends of a single line.
one.........Jesus is the son of God
two.........Jesus is the son of Man
each camp seems to fall in line with one of these views (with few exceptions). however, orthodox theology would dictate that he is in fact both, rendering any polarized views on this issue theologically invalid and completely heretical. in the west most of us grew up affected by the cultural heritage of the Judea-Christian order. believers tend to accept truths based on limited faith based understandings and cynics react purely to these limited viewpoints. one of the early fissures between the church of Rome and the rest of the church (this part being what we call the Eastern Orthodox Church) was over the nature of the divinity of Christ. the issue at hand was the emanation of the Holy Spirit. this issue is the reason for the differences in the creed. The church of Rome said that the Holy Spirit emanated from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox church maintains that the Holy Spirit emanates only from the Father.
Jesus' divinity is no trivial theological matter.
the current discussion on this board trivializes a sublime matter.
if you are cynical to the whole idea of a Jesus spare us the I'm so against that shit it blocks my ability to seem clever when making fun of the assumed status quo. yep, punk rockers generally sound like idiots when talking about religion whether for it or against it. that last sentence illustrates how lame such a polarized discussion can be.......for or against it??
i am sliding off subject now but, one point must be made clear.
the entire theme of the New Testament can be summarized in a sentence
attributed to St. Athanasius.............
" God became man so that man could become god"
The Roman idea of litigating religion has led all of us in the west to believing that the marriage of mysticism and reason is impossible.
so, all you believers realize that things are more mystical than you think
and cynics, please realize that Christianity is more reasonable than you think.
as a side note the gospels of John, Matthew, and Mark need to not be relied on too heavily for illustrating theological truth. many passages share
phrases that are exactly the same and possess narratives which are merely parables. the mystical nature of Jesus which is critical to understanding his divinity or lack there of can be found in the gospels of Paul, a man who never met Jesus in the flesh.......continue.

What's the timeline on the writing and editing? Anyone? I just saw some history channel (?) program about the books of the Bible that haven't made the cut, which books were found where and when, whatnot. And I have this sense that the Gospels were written down something like 300 or 500 years down the road...

Steve has two Dove awards. Seriously, he uses them as card protectors when he's playing poker. No, seriously, I couldn't make this up.

As with EL34's and EL84's, I love the old Sylvania 6L6GC. I'm a sucker for Sylvanias.

NerblyBear wrote:

tmidgett wrote:I like the part about him rising from the dead.

If you are dead

and entombed in a cave

and the entrance is blocked by a rock

and someone finds that the rock has been rolled away

and your corpse is no longer there

then obviously you have risen from the dead!

I mean, that's the easiest explanation. Not graverobbers followed by hungry wolves or anything like that.

Well, that wasn't the only proof. If we are to believe the Gospel of John, Jesus actually came back and spoke and ate with the Apostles after the Resurrection and before the Ascension.

Hence: Talking Zombie Jesus.

El Flaco wrote:Jesus' divinity is no trivial theological matter.
the current discussion on this board trivializes a sublime matter.

Perhaps for a bunch of theologians this question is not trivial, but I am an atheist, and I get the impression that most of the people who have contributed to this thread are atheists too. For atheists, the issue of Jesus' "divinity" is about as trivial as things get.
Christianity has been a major influence on "us" in the west, obviously, but the influence it has exerted is political, not spiritual. Getting atheists bogged down in argument over specific matters of theological interest only, interpretations of biblical passages, etc, is just one more way of attempting to diffuse their arguments.
"Well religious or not you should be familiar with the bible because it's great literature and part of our history etc etc" - I'm not arguing against knowledge of the bible, and in fact I disagree with the above attack on the King James version. The sections of it taken from Tyndale's earlier work are very good for exposing some of the sleazy rhetorical tricks Catholics seem addicted to. The "sublime" nature of our current topic being one more example.

Skronk wrote:

big_dave wrote:Also the entire notion of a "uniquely divine" son of God didn't exist until way after Jesus was dead, it was invented to suit the scripture, not the other way around so its just not going to present in any Gospel. The Acts and the Epistles document dudes arriving at this conclusion.

That's not necessarily true. Egyptian religions deified the living too. Pharaohs were considered "divine".

A lot of so-called teachings, are based on scripture, but it really comes down to the clergy, the way they've perverted, and clouded the myth/person of Christ.

You see that's sort of my point. The Pharoahs, the Caesars, and Alexander the Great were considered "divine" and to be children of God, but not uniquely divine. A lot of (especially modern protestant) opinion of the subject rests on the fact that Jesus proclaiming divinity was shocking and damaging to the establishment just by the fact that he was saying it. In fact he was just talking in a way that leaders had for thousands of years. Its also good to note that Jesus started his teachings just after a huge revival in messiahism in Israel, with rebels, insurgents and preachers claiming divinity for themselves left right and center. Jesus' comparitive modesty and populism in the face of this draws stronger reactions throughout the gospels than his claims to be a "son of God".

Now, its the unique part that I was refering to. You'll notice that the Holy Spirit isn't explicitly mentioned in the Gospels until the Acts, and the uniqueness of Jesus' divinity is tied up completely in the notion of the trinity. This belief is emerging in the texts written after Jesus' death. It was different to diefying a guy they thought was part of the divine, the pivotal idea here is that only Jesus was divine and it doesn't happen really until after his death.

The divinity of Jesus isn't mentioned explicitly in the Gospels, and this is one of the reasons that Christianity is based around bible study. Combing the texts for signs, symbols and foreshadowing that agree with the doctrine. This is an essential part of the use of the Bible as a holy book within the church.

gjhardwick wrote:God, not god?!?

Whether you believe in God or not, it is still proper writing style to capitalize his name. "Samuel Clemens", "Mark Twain" and "Tom Sawyer" are all proper names. Though "Mark Twain" is a pseudonym and "Tom Sawyer" is a fictional character, it is proper style to capitalize in all three instances, not because all three are real human beings or because they're true, legal names, but because they're proper names.

When you are using the word "god" in reference to multiple gods, however, capitalization is not necessary, because in that case "god" is just a regular descriptive noun. All those gods have their own individual proper names, which of course need to be capitalized (ie. "Zeus", "Athena", "Loki", etc.). For example, while you'd capitalize the proper names "John", "Mary" or "George Washington", you would not capitalize the regular nouns, "man", "woman", "general" or "president".

Of course, I would also capitalize the names of any other monotheistic gods as well, such as "Yahweh" and "Allah." When referring to the Holy Trinity (which is a proper name), I always capitalize "the Father", "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit," because they are obviously proper names as well, even though they are all used to describe aspects of one god. Just the same, Allah has 99 "perfect" or "beautiful" names ("Allah", "Ar-Rahman", "Al-Malik", etc.) and those would all be capitalized as well..

I never go so far as to capitalize pronouns associated with God though, like "Him," "His", etc. because IMO that's just stupid.

You guys are all overlooking the fact that Jesus Christ was in fact Jules Caesar.