Originally Posted by bollywood:
“And yet it's not clear that the early Christians thought that Jesus was born divine or to fulfill prophecy. It seems they may have had the idea of 'exaltation,' that God elevated Jesus' status in his lifetime.
It's not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of God. In some quotes he shows God as superior. He calls himself the son of Man.
I don't think the NT is a bad book just because we can't be certain of events in early history. There is the same problem of writing about any event. Let's say photos of 9/11 were destroyed, and all the journalism about it. A historian would set out to re-construct 9/11 based on people who knew eyewitnesses. It wouldn't be perfect, no. But we would have some reasonable version of 9/11.”
“And yet it's not clear that the early Christians thought that Jesus was born divine or to fulfill prophecy. It seems they may have had the idea of 'exaltation,' that God elevated Jesus' status in his lifetime.
It's not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of God. In some quotes he shows God as superior. He calls himself the son of Man.
I don't think the NT is a bad book just because we can't be certain of events in early history. There is the same problem of writing about any event. Let's say photos of 9/11 were destroyed, and all the journalism about it. A historian would set out to re-construct 9/11 based on people who knew eyewitnesses. It wouldn't be perfect, no. But we would have some reasonable version of 9/11.”
You've tried the 9/11 analogy and it simply does not work. It's baffling as to why you think it does. Talk about 'false comparisons' (or metaphors as you called them)!!




