Jesus' Divinity

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
As of late I have found that there has been more and more skepticism regarding the four cannonized Gospels. And, I am sure that there is some need for this. However, I have also found that more and more people are reading "The Da Vinci Code" and because of this they have become "experts" on the fact that Jesus was just a normal human. I have one thing to say to you: WRONG!

I am going to show you that not only were the Gospels quoted in "The Da Vinci Code," (Mary Magdelene, Philip) were very much used to propel an Agenda, but also, another popular Gospel, St. Thomas', was not of true origin as well. I hope to also shed some light on the whole 80+ gospels being submitted and only 4 chosen. I also plan to show you that the 4 gospels shown are not only authentic, in regards to the time period written as there is no total proof it was written by the four, but also that Jesus was in fact devine. Are you ready? Here I go:

I am going to start off with the Gospel of Philip. The first reason that we can look at the Gospel of Philip and say this is questionable is that it was written atleast 150 years AFTER Jesus' death. So, had Philip been a mere 15 years old at the time of Jesus he would have been at least 165 years old. We know this because the Gospel of Philip is estimated to be written between 180-350 A.D. Remarkable fact. Than, we add in the fact that, "Benton Layton, identified it as a Valentinian anthology of excerpts." Valentinus was a very well known Gnostic Christian thinker. In fact, they go as far as to say that this is a work that was meant to be read as "fantasy" as opposed to the Disciple Philip's true words.

en.wikipedia.org...ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinius
www.light-bringer.com...
www.theologywebsite.com...

Moving on now, we are going to take a look at the Gospel of Mary Magdelene. This one is tough. It was found that this Gospel could not be dated any later than the 2nd Century, meaning it was probably written around the time that the others were written or a little later. It really depends on when this was written, essentially somewhere between 30 AD and 199 AD. However, it makes absolutely NO CLAIM that Jesus and Mary were, in fact, married. However, there is something far more interesting within the Mary Magdalene-Jesus Realm. It is that she is the true author of the Gospel of John. Now, all of this is speculation, and none can be proven. For that reason I am only going to give you the Wikipedia source for this one. However, in the Wikipedia source it makes a fascinating claim I think I should put in quotes.



An argument for support of this speculation is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment)— "Be fruitful and multiply". It would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to travel about teaching as a rabbi, as Jesus certainly did.

A counter-argument to this is that the Judaism of Jesus' time was very diverse and the role of the rabbi was not yet well defined. Celibate teachers like John the Baptist were known in the communities of the Essenes, and Paul of Tarsus was an example of an unmarried itinerant teacher among the Christians, at a time when most Christians were still practicing Jews. It was really not until after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 that Rabbinic Judaism became dominant and the role of the rabbi made uniform in Jewish communities.

Mary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus's tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consonant with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus might have been expected to make provision for her care as well as for his mother Mary. Given the lack of contemporary documentation, this scenario cannot be proven, and although some consider the idea desirable to believe, most scholars do not take it seriously.



en.wikipedia.org...

Now, moving on to the Gospel of St. Thomas. This one is a bit shady. Scholars date this one as early as 70 AD and as late as the 4th Century. However, no one knows the true author of the Gospel of St. Thomas, and it is very widely doubted that it was anyone who had any contact with Jesus at all. Because of this, you can see many things that are hypocrisies of the other four cannonized gospels AND of its own self.

Thomas 14

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give alms, you will harm your spirits.
When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.


Well according to the other Gospels you must pray to further your chances in heaven, yet it claims don't... Now hypocrisies against itself:

Thomas 104

104 They said to Jesus, "Come, let us pray today, and let us fast." Jesus said, "What sin have I committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the bridal suite, then let people fast and pray."


Now, read the first sentence in Thomas 14, and read the first line in Thomas 104. So, Jesus knowingly sins? Would that not make everything else he did a moot point? You can tell that this wasn't a very well written Gospel.

www.cresourcei.org...
www.goodnewsinc.net... home.epix.net...

BTW... Wikipedia dates this Gospel to the year 200. Oh yeah, and it was written in Egypt.

en.wikipedia.org...

Okay, now that I have covered the 3 main controversial Gospels, I can say to you that none of these really fit into the historical time period and/or doesn't have a credible author. Except, of course, Mary's. Which states nothing aside from Jesus was divine. Now, lets move onto a quick history of the 4 Cannonized Gospels and wrap up with some "Proof" of Jesus' divinity.

The Gospel of Matthew was written in AD 60-65. So, it was written when it should have been written, and it is actually supposedly written by Matthew himself. Although, Scholars prefer to say it is by anonymous because of the lack of evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Gospel of Mark was written somewhere between AD 65-80 and, although anonymous by scholars, is believed to be written by St. Mark, a disciple of Peter! He gained knowledge of these stories through Peter and wrote them down.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Gospel of Luke was written between AD 80-130, which puts it a little further out of range, but they are very unsure about the dates. However, it is written by The Greeks for the Gentiles. Although this one is a little shady, it is still falling in the correct time frame.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Gospel of John is said to have been written in stages, starting in AD 50 and ending in AD 100. Although that is just a guess. Other Scholars claim it was written between AD 70-100, which very much so puts it in the correct range. Some believe that this Gospel was written by Mary Magdalene and placed under the name John because a womans words back than may have led to it being less credible. However, others maintain it was written by the Apostle John. I kind of believe it was Mary myself. Makes sense with the "beloved disciple." I say this not because she and Jesus were married, but because she would have to be considered Beloved because she was the lone female in the clan.

en.wikipedia.org...

Okay, sorry about the lack of sources there, but I do know that many people here already know the history behind the Gospels and those who don't can trust that site.

Moving on to the final subject, Jesus' divinity. I will have no other source but the Gospels themselves to prove my point here.



John 20:24-20:29

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into his nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "my Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."


He clearly calls Jesus God, yet Jesus does NOTHING to change what he believes of him. If you believe that the Gospel of Thomas is in fact true, than you may want to believe that Jesus took him aside when he claims to tell Thomas something that he cannot tell the others. This is very much evidence of his divinity, but wait I still have 4 more examples for you; and trust me there is a lot more than that!



John 11:30

The Father and I are one.


simple quote there, he and his father are one and the same.



John 14:5-14:9

Thomas said to him, "master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him." Philip said to him, "Master, show us the Father, andt hat will be enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?


So if you have seen Jesus you have seen the father. Kind of lends some support to the whole 'Trinity' view of God, doesn't it?



Matthew 17:1-8
After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And hew as transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and do not be afraid." And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone.


A longer quote from the bible, but it shows the Father calling out to them calling Jesus his beloved son. Sounds pretty clear to me, he is divine, but there is 1 more I would like to share with you.



Matthew 22:41-46
While the Parisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying, "What is your opinion about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They replied, "David's." He said to them, "How, then, does David, inspired by the Spirit, call him 'lord,' saying:

"The Lord said to my lord,
"Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet""?

If avid calls him 'lord,' how can he be his son?" No one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.


Shows that the Messiah must be Lord, and to consider Jesus the Messiah and not the Lord is a very bad choise here.



Luke 23:2
They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading your people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar, and maintains that he is the Messiah, a King."


Note his claim of being a Messiah. Apply that to the above. I Just have one more line to share with you regarding this.



Matthew 21:42

Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the scriptures:

'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes"?


This is just a metaphor for Jesus and what he stands for, the corner stone.

I believe I have shown you that Jesus was in fact divine and that "The Da Vinci Code," is a load of crap in terms of differentiating between fact and fiction. People it is a fictional novel. I have presented Facts. The Gospels were all written in the correct time period and place as opposed to the others that people want to believe. The vote at Nicea was to determine if he was God, not divine. Isaiah stated the Messiah had to be Divine, and Jesus was already the Messiah.

Thanks.




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
[edited out insult - nygdan]

[edit on 10-4-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I am not quite sure what that means, but thanks.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Awesome, got my vote for way above.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Another Religious thread base on feelings, opinions and personal interpretation.

Yes Jesus and the trinity are going to be very proud of this thread.


I am still waiting for the divine prof of Jesus and his virginal birth.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
The DaVinci Code was and is a great work. OF FICTION. IMO much better
than the works of fiction paulineism is based on.

The Theoriesand beliefs Brown talks of, are not original to him they have all
been around since the time of the Jerusalem Church and Jesus. BTW comparing
the Apocrypha and Gnostic writings to pauls fantasies is about equal to comparing Army records of the greasy grass to histories of that battle as recorded by Sitting Bull or Crazy Horses family.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Another Religious thread base on feelings, opinions and personal interpretation.

Yes Jesus and the trinity are going to be very proud of this thread.


I am still waiting for the divine prof of Jesus and his virginal birth.

Well, seeing as how this is the Religious Conspiracies forum, I would venture to guess that the majority, if not ALL, posts here are, in fact, based on one's opinion. I mean, isn't that what Religion actually is?


About the Da Vinci code, yes i know it was fiction that was my inspiration for this thread. I was hoping to enlighten some who believe Dan Browns word was like the Gospels, no pun intended just a stupid cliche.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Amen to all of that....nice job!



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes Jesus and the trinity are going to be very proud of this thread.


I am still waiting for the divine prof of Jesus and his virginal birth.


Yes, they are

Here you go, Matthew 1:18-21

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”


Glad I could help

[edit on 4/11/2005 by Jehosephat]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
It's quite wonderful to see how much interest Dan Brown's book as brought to religion and religious teachings and of course Jesus. I believe everything has a purpose and I think that his book although based on fiction was put here for people to pick apart and search and find out what really happened (ie:The Bible) So I think that threads like this are excellent.
Nice work I can tell you put your heart into it.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Hooyah!

Good job! Nice work, gets a vote. voting for the Ryanpster, the Ryanpternader...shamalamaRyanpla

This is a worthy work to show how bad the "Da Vinci Code" is. Keep it up, and never mind the ......ah....the.....detractors.

marg6043


Another Religious thread base on feelings, opinions and personal interpretation.

Ah...by the way, if you want to say something is someone’s opinion, that is cool and all, but your words carry a bit more weight if you back them with a least, some small bit of logic or fact, something? Ryanp goes through all this work, and all you got is ........nothing? Do you have anything you could put forward other than your, say so, to prove your point? Something more, than your opinion?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
As of late I have found that there has been more and more skepticism regarding the four cannonized Gospels. And, I am sure that there is some need for this. However, I have also found that more and more people are reading "The Da Vinci Code" and because of this they have become "experts" on the fact that Jesus was just a normal human. I have one thing to say to you: WRONG!


First of all you have taken examples from the bible and websites which cannot prove anything as substantial evidence.

Jesus was the messiah, Maybe.

He was a man though, he fooled many of his fellow men with this as he spread the lie of god. The roman catholic church is built on lie after lie and continues to lie and be deceitful to people everyday. (same goes for Opus dei which is real by the way.)

www....-------------------------/library/religion/secret-archives-vatican/

Are you going to say this is lying and that these books do not exist along with the priory of sion.

Do not insult peoples intullect.

[edit on 11/4/05 by Hunting Veritas]
*shortened quote

[edit on 4-11-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Hey Ryan.... you make some very interesting statements:


Originally posted by Ryanp5555
The Gospel of Matthew was written in AD 60-65. So, it was written when it should have been written, and it is actually supposedly written by Matthew himself. Although, Scholars prefer to say it is by anonymous because of the lack of evidence.



Originally posted by Ryanp5555
The Gospel of Luke was written between AD 80-130, which puts it a little further out of range, but they are very unsure about the dates. However, it is written by The Greeks for the Gentiles. Although this one is a little shady, it is still falling in the correct time frame.



Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Some believe that this Gospel was written by Mary Magdalene and placed under the name John because a womans words back than may have led to it being less credible.


Does this mean that you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? If some things could be false, if the early church could change one gospel from being Mary's to John, that means it is very possible to distort the bible, thus making EVERYTHING you have quoted (from the Bible) suspect.


Originally posted by Ryanp5555
He clearly calls Jesus God, yet Jesus does NOTHING to change what he believes of him.

I am probably just being petty here, but if you knew for a fact that someone was dead, and then you saw them still alive with bruises on their hands, wouldn't you say something like "Oh my God!"
?

BTW, God called many things "Son" throughout the Bible. Israel for one. There are others that I can't remember now. And Jesus saying he was "the way" doesn't mean he was God, it just meant to follow his example.

Now here is an interesting piece of logic for you to consider. Jesus is the son of God, right? That would mean that God created Jesus. That automatically means that God (the Father) is greater than Jesus.

Jesus may very well have been divine (extra blessed by God), but that does not mean that he was Son of God.

Now you are in every way entitled to believe what you want. I just wanted to show you that there is another way of looking at things.


Originally posted by marg6043
I am still waiting for the divine prof of Jesus and his virginal birth.

How can that be proven? It occured (or didn't
) more than 2000 years ago. The only record of it is in a number of religious books. If one can believe that he performed the miracles attributed to him, it is not that much of a leap of faith to believe he came from virgin birth. If you want divine proof (or disproof), you will have to wait till you are dead, if Jesus does not come back before then
.


Originally posted by Balaams donkey
This is a worthy work to show how bad the "Da Vinci Code" is.

hahaha...it wasn't so bad. True, it was fiction, but that doesn't take away from the enjoyment of reading it.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Okay, first I would like to state that yes, there can not be any further proof from within the bible and even the qu'ran, in terms of the virgin birth, to back up the claims that Jesus actually lived, none the less was divine. Now, I would like to address the Priory of Sion and the Vatican archives, what exactly does their existence prove? Yes, I agree, the Vatican has archives, yes, I agree the Priory of Sion does exist, so does Opus Dei, but I don't see how that holds any relevance? I have just shown you, from an encyclopedia, why some of the alleged proof from this fictional book was in fact false. If I insulted you by showing that, than i appologize. To Babyloi, you are correct, in the end this is a matter of oppinion that we will have to wait until death to find out for sure. However, my intent was to show that the facts in the book may have not been all correct. And as someone else said it could have been done on purpose, to have people get up and find out the truth themselves. To educate the christian world on their own history. Which I think would be extremely fascinating.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

my intent was to show that the facts in the book may have not been all correct. And as someone else said it could have been done on purpose, to have people get up and find out the truth themselves. To educate the christian world on their own history. Which I think would be extremely fascinating.


Now this is something, Its called psychology. Something Dan brown is known for. There are 100% solid facts in the book this cannot be denied.

The question is, what is he trying to tell you??? Why is he using facts when he could make up stuff so much easier???



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Still not body has been able yet to prove that divinity is nothing more than a myth, here say and the bible is the only ones that talk about divinity and Jesus, by the accounts of people that were death long after their words were written.

So spear me the proof of facts, because they can never be proved you cannot interrogate the death any more than you have seen Jesus or God coming back to tell their version of their story.

As usual speculations of myths and glory of the time when the Church was born and an Idol was needed and created.

Yes good for the faithful but not enough for me, never been and never will, the faithful don't ask for proof because over and over has been told that they are not good enough for it, but they are told nerveless to feel it and believe it.

The bible is a tricky littler book that make sure that as a sinner not matter how faithful and pious you are, you are never good enough to have the mysteries of the bible like divinity revealed to you or for that matter god or Jesus. The physical proof of Jesus or God could never be proof, the bible made sure also that Jesus body could never be found after all he raised from the death, only one divinity and one resurrection per eternity


And by the way what got to me about this thread is the way the author is presenting his opinions as a fact.

Sorry but you has not proven anything but what you as a faithful believer of the words of others without proof, think about a myth of a long ago death Icon told by the bible as the only truth.

Divinity has never been proven.

Oh........I forgot, we do have some young girls around that swear on the bible that their pregnancy was without sex, maybe some of them are of divine origin




[edit on 11-4-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
You can not quote bible parts as proof anything....it proves nothing.....Marg is entirely correct, the whole thread is nothing more than bible quotes and personal opinion.....it theresfore really doesn't even belong here, but over on BTS....no conspiracy here....just opinion.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Brown states 3 specific things as size=4]FACT

1. The Priory exists
2. Opus Dei Exists
3. all artwork is as described. At the time of publication this was also
true. since publication of the unillustrated version of the book the alter
mentioned at Notre Dame de France in london has been removed.

you can no more disprove the beliefs as stated by brown than you can
prove your beliefs that the bible is the true word of a god.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
the majority of my thread is about the authors of the gospels. I go delve deeper into Jesus at the very end. Are we picking and choosing what we read. Oh, yeah, to Babyloi, i forgot to respond to your comment about the manipulation of John's name and how that could apply to the rest of the bible. I say that it could impact the rest of the bible, but no more than knowing one of Marks disciples wrote the gospel of Mark.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
this was being talked of in a thread on ATS. I ran across something that got
me to pondering the other day. As I recall the first printed bible was the Gutenberg bible and was printed in German.

What if the copy he was working from was worn or in someother way damaged? If he was working from a German copy to start with and it wasfor what ever reason partially illegable Johanna might well come out Johann then
be translated to english as John. Or maybe he just ran out of A's





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join