/lit/ - Literature

>>14112699
It's hard for a guy who didn't exist to know things, anon.

>>14112699
What part of
>to know me is to know the father
don’t you understand

>>14112699
According to modern constructions of historical Jesus. We'll never know whether Jesus claimed he was God or not. Paul certainly thinks Jesus was God though.
>>14112710
He's talking about the historical Jesus, not the one of the Gospels.

>>14112699
it's hard for a guy who didn't exist to know things, anon.

>>14112721
Jesus did exist (pic related); and the zeitgeist bullshit that you have in your picture is false.

Jesus is a bad mother fucker.
Of course he knew whats what.

>>14112721
Smoke a chode

>>14112710
>>14112720
N. T. Wright is talking about the Gospels

>>14112731

>>14112777
LOL. That book was written by an objectivist blogger purporting the Flavian Hypothesis. That hypothesis has been outed as nonsense and fraudulent.
https://ehrmanblog.org/conspiracy-nonsense-members/

>>14112699

>At this point, again, many Christians have taken a wrong turn. They have spoken of Jesus as being “aware,” during his lifetime, of his “divinity”—aware in a sense that made him instantly, almost casually, the possessor of such knowledge about himself as would have made events like his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane quite inexplicable. What I have argued for elsewhere, not to diminish the full incarnation of Jesus but to explore its deepest dimension, is that Jesus was aware of a call, a vocation, to do and be what, according to the scriptures, only Israel’s God gets to do and be. That, I believe, is what it means to speak about Jesus being both truly divine and truly human. And we realize, once we remind ourselves that humans were made in God’s image, that this is not a category mistake, but the ultimate fulfillment of the purpose of creation itself.

>That is why, when Jesus went to Jerusalem that last time, he told stories about a king (or a master) going away and eventually coming back to see how his subjects or servants were getting on. Jesus was speaking of YHWH himself, having left Israel at the time of the exile, coming back at last to judge and to save. But, though Jesus speaks of YHWH coming to Jerusalem, it is Jesus himself who is coming. It is Jesus, riding into the city on a donkey, assuming authority over the Temple, declaring to the high priest that he will be seated at the right hand of Power, giving his own flesh and blood for the sins of the world. The closer we get to the cross, the clearer the answer we get to the question, Who did Jesus think he was?

>>14112980
>He must have known he might be mad. Jesus was certainly shrewd enough to be aware of the possibility of delusion. But—and this is the most mysterious thing of all—he was sustained not only by his reading of scripture, in which he found so clearly the lines of his own vocation, but also by his intimate prayer life with the one he called Abba, Father. Somehow, Jesus both prayed to the Father and took upon himself a role which, in the ancient prophecies, was reserved for YHWH—that of rescuing Israel and the world. He was obedient to the Father, simultaneously doing what only God can do.

>How can we make sense of this? I do not think that Jesus “knew he was divine” in the same way that we know we are cold or hot, happy or sad, male or female. It was more like the kind of “knowledge” we associate with vocation, where people know, in the very depths of their being, that they are called to be an artist, a mechanic, a philosopher. For Jesus, this seems to have been a deep “knowledge” of that kind, a powerful and all-consuming belief that Israel’s God was more mysterious than most people had supposed; that within the very being of this God there was a give-and-take, a to-and-fro, a love given and received. Jesus seems to have believed that he, the fully human prophet from Nazareth, was one of those partners in love. He was called, in obedience to the Father, to follow through the project to which that love would give itself freely and fully.

>This has brought us to the borders of language as well as theology. But the conclusion I have reached as a historian is that such an analysis best explains why Jesus did what he did, and why his followers, so soon after his death and resurrection, came to believe and do what they believed and did. And the conclusion I reach as a Christian is that this understanding of Jesus and his role explains, in turn, why it is that I and millions of others have discovered Jesus to be personally present and active in the world and in our lives, our rescuer and our Lord.

>>14112721
>yikes

>>14112749
>is revived dead osiris long enough to have sex with him
not only that, she even hooked him up with what basically amonunts to a magic strap-on because osiris' dick was eaten by a catfish in the nile after he was dead (hence the revival)

>>14112721
historically proven Christ existed, whether you believe he was the son of God or not.

>born on december 25th
How stupid can you be? everyone knows Jesus was not born on december 25th. it was a date agreed on so everyone can universally remember and celebrate the birth of Christ. it was determined he was born around september/august.

>>14112721
>WE FUCKING LOVE ATHEISM
wat

>>14112720
>He's talking about the historical Jesus, not the one of the Gospels.

That's the same jesus you fuckin spastic

>>14113060
>The Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus constructed by modern historians are the same
Just letting you know, the Gospels are historically inaccurate.

>>14113077
Read

>>14113077

Yes you fucking moron, they are talking about the exact same individual. The historicity or veracity of the bible is really irrelevant. I wonder if your retarded brain does this separate clause catergorization for other historically significant individuals vs what modern historians are writing about them

>>14113132
>they are talking about the exact same individual
LOL. There are dozens of reconstructions of historical Jesus. Some say that he is a Jewish Preacher from Galilee while others say that he is an apocalyptic prophet. Paul and Gospels display an exalted version of Jesus. Please tell me how a modern reconstruction of the historical Jesus using the tools of historiography is the same as the Jesus in the Gospels written by people a generation after Jesus.

Christ is immortal. As long as there are humans you will know Jesus. Stay mad

>>14113156

You cant seriously be this stupid. Do you think the napoleon bonaparte of historical documents and stories is talking about a DIFFERENT napoleon bonaparte because modern historians have to cast doubt on many written events?

>>14113179
Yes, by historical I mean modern constructions of the figures using the tools of modern historiography.

>>14112721

>>14112699
Since no one else has even bothered to engage with the biblical text, I will.
>Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58)
That is "I am" as in "I AM," YHWH. Jesus claims here to be the God who spoke to Moses. The Jews full well understood what he was claiming, which is why they immediately attempt to stone him.
>And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2:49)
Not only did Jesus recognize that God was his Father, he did so by the time he was twelve.
Honestly, the entire book of John is just Jesus going on about his Godship. "I am the resurrection and the life" isn't exactly what you say if you don't think you're God.
Disbelieve the Gospels all you want, be my guest, but if you accept them it's pretty obvious that Jesus did know he was God.

>>14112699
Would it matter?

>>14112980
>>14112991
Thank you for posting the relevant text so the thread can (hopefully) get back on track. This seems like an interesting subject

>>14112980
>>14112991
Hey, I saw him speak in New York City last week.

>>14112721
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

No ,read the new Testament he tells you multiple times.

>>14114887
It's nonsense and the quote I see from the book is pure cringe.
>He must have known he might be mad. Jesus was certainly shrewd enough to be aware of the possibility of delusion.
It's pure heresy something similar to astorianisum. And the fact that this guy pretends to accept the divinity of Jesus is bafaling

>>14114887
First worthwhile post ITT.

>>14114887
>KJV
immediately wrong

>>14115089
Hmm only John says this

>>14114887
Notice how the only quotes where jesus claims to be god come from John, the most far removed gospel. The Luke verse could be talking about some other relationship with a higher father.

But if jesus knew he was god and went around saying it so obviously as in John(and I agree, your argument that jesus is claiming to be god in john is correct) why didn't any of the gospels mention it? Did they forget? Did they not think it was important?

>>14115304
Luke 22:70

>>14112699
Jesus himself says He's the Truth, The Way and The Life.

>>14112720
Same person.

>>14112721
>WE FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>>14113077
Jesus is just like Napoleón and Cesar then.

>>14112980
>>14112991
What Arian twaddle. Honestly, Anglican theologians are pretty much unmatched in peddling pedantic academic hair-splitting arguments which serve no purpose. I had respect for N.T. Wright but this is borderline heretic, but worst of all, it serves no purpose. What a hairspliting useless observation to put in an intro to Christianity.

>>14115841
Literally how is this Arianism? Where does he deny the divinity of Christ? He literally places Christ within the divine being.

>>14115823
It's amazing to realise that the cartoon part of the picture originally intended as a caricature is tamer than the real part.

>>14115857
How is it not heresy Jesus created the world you think he does not know his own fate.
He might me mad and not certain in his actions is a statement that does not match, if you accept Jesus as part of the trinity.
That is denyl of divinity it does not matter that he stated that it's not.
He is trying to reduce Jesus to a prophet, not the eternal logos.

>Yeah I'm omniscient but I don't know it
Silly.

>>14112980
>That, I believe