I've heard an argument from skeptics that the historical Jesus never claimed he was God, is this true?

I've heard an argument from skeptics that the historical Jesus never claimed he was God, is this true?

Attached: lmao.jpg (255x220, 12.29K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

That was one of the things He said that the Pharisees tried to use as an excuse to kill him.

no

Are atheists going to support any Christian orthodox if they can get away with saying the opposite.
What do you expect from them anyways?
The new testament is one of earliest if not the earliest discussions about Jesus, but they discard it because it's 'biased' while not comprehending the irony of their own statement.

Not fall to lie that if someone present themselves as secular that means they are unbiased-no body is unbiased. So put on your cross and proclaim the gospel to all creatures.

...

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

(((skeptics)))

Don't need to claim you're God, when you are God. Compare it to the (((jews))) that keep claiming that they're jews, when they're actually not jews.

These people are probably reading old Bart Ehrman stuff, but he changed his mind about this: ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/

To summarise from the article: "So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read."

I'm just gonna keep spamming this.
Here are 7 parts of the Bible where Jesus confirms His own divinity.
S.S.W.I.F.T.T.

SON of Man
Daniel 7:13
Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man multiple times.

Lord of the SABBATH
Mark 2:23-28
The Sabbath is the LORD's day, and the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath.

I AM
John 8:56-59
Here, the Son of Man uses the same declaration as God in the burning bush with Moses. He quite explicitly calls Himself God, and the Jews rage shows this was what He meant.

FORGIVENESS of Sins
Mark 2:5-7
His authority to forgive sins comes from His divinity.

TRIAL
Mark 14:61-62
Once again, Christ calls Himself the Son of Man and refers to the prophecies of Daniel.
Luke 23:3
He gives a positive answer to Pilate, rather than correcting him.

THOMAS
John 20:28-29
He does not correct Thomas, as He would is Thomas were in error. Rather, He blesses him.

Bonus for ya:
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

Revelation 1:17-18 And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.

If you are referring to passage from John, no, he said that if ordinary humans are called gods and all of us are sons of most high, then he has more legitimacy to claim these titles, for being sent directly from father and then immediately repeats that "He and Father are one". So yes, He directly claimed that He was God and not "god" in sense as it is used on us in the bible.

What are the sources on the "historical" Jesus? Nothing.
So called "historical" Jesus is just a misreading of the Gospels.

Historical Jesus in Incarnate Word of God, Christ the King.

(((you)))

Attached: WcjKJT6.png (290x200, 82.58K)

Is a bigger joke in all of atheism?

Why are the recent trolling attempts so lame?

Summer, probably.

There's something beautifully instructive about how Ehrman went apostate over the problem of suffering as experienced by some Cambodians at his local congregation who made it through the Pol Pot regime but the people who actually did the suffering stuck with the faith.

Seeing as it's not even proven "the historical Jesus" was an actually existing person, it would be impossible to accurately answer this question.

I think you guys are misunderstanding him. He's claiming, as I see it, that the truly historical Jesus is the Jesus present in the Gospels, and that the reconstruction that academics refer to as the "historical Jesus" is just an intentional misreading of the Gospels