Could Jesus as a biblical character have been partially human?
This is a debate over whether or not the standard biblical description of Jesus is sufficient to grant him partial human status.
Take note we are assuming Jesus existed for the sake of the argument.
Yes
Side Score: 17
|
 |
No
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus lacked the essential features of being human, according to the standard interpretation of the Bible. He could not sin, he could not make mistakes, his body wasn't entirely subjected to how nature works, since he came back to life and performed miracles. That makes him not human. Side: No
Hence was a partial Human. He was the Son of God is what is said. When he came down as a prophet, he was to purify the World as Human. As one among them. He wasn't like the rest but he sure was Human since his physical body did come to an end. It is different that he was resurrected. That was the holy spirit. Side: yes
1
point
2
points
1
point
First of all for someone to say that Jesus never lived does not know history and I am going to address that since it was brought up in the opening statement. Whether you believe what He said about Himself is true...the fact is he lived and secular sources attest to this. It is quite amazing that over half the worlds people believe that He is at least a prophet to their religion, if not God in the flesh. Even Muslims acknowledge that He lived. In His own culture he was regarded as a RAbbi or prophet. For the first three centuries of church history Christrians acknowledged Jesus for whom He said He was. Those in the Middle ages believed the evidence, those in the Renaissance believed the evidence that Jesus in fact lived. Now whatever you think about Christ is one thing...but to flatly deny He existed is error. Jesus has been the most dominant of all people in the historical record of earth....for over twenty centuries. And when you think about it our calendars were calculated from Christs birth. Now for sources...Pauls gospel testify to the fact that Jesus was a human being, that He did exist. These books or account of His life were written around 15-25 years after his death. None of the other gospels had been written yet when Paul talked about Christs human experiences. One can not with all the evidence explain away the evidences that He lived. By evidence I am talking about several things. He was born, Jewish and grew up in Galilee. He was also associated with John the Baptist, and the disciples whom He called to travel with Him. He went to Jerusalem for Passover and He overturned the money changers tables. He was then when he was around thirty three years old was hung by Pilate. His disciples talked about his resurrection after He died. Now you can make Christ into whatever you want Him to be...but it is a fact that He lived and died by crucifixion. I believe that the Bible never calls us to blind faith because the evidence is overwhelming. I would like to say this. Skeptics will never be convinced by argument. This has to do with evidence but also how it affects the head and the heart. And I believe that this is a heart issue as well. I'll finish with this....a lot of people think that other than the Bible there is no mention of Christ whatsoever in historical document. This is not true. Secular historians have also written about Him. Tacitus a Roman historian, Suetonius, Pliny, Epictetus,Lucian, Galenus, Lampridius, DioCassius, Hinnerius, Libanius, Ammianus, Marcellius, Eunapius, Zosimus. This list was taken from the book, Why I Believe, by D. James Kennedy. I am not alone in believing about Christ. Great and brilliant people of history believe who Christ said He was. Shakespeare, Dickens, Napoleon, Byron......many of Americas Founders.....and let's not forget scientists. Side: yes
You misunderstand the purpose of the argument entirely. The argument was not about Jesus's existence. The argument is about Jesus as described in the Bible, applied to the identity of what makes a human a human. Please read the argument carefully before formulating a response. Side: No
0
points
Said in opening statment..."Take note we are assuming Jesus existed for the sake of the argument" The statement questions whether Jesus even existed. Thats like saying.....we are assuming that George Washington existed. It is a ridiculous statement. It would not have been made if the person making if believed he really existed. They questioned something that is fact. I made a logical response to a stupid statement. Side: yes
Do you want people really think you're retarded? Or are you THE MOST SUCCESSFUL TROLL IN THE WORLD 8o The question is on if he's human. You didn't answer whether you believe that or not... you just said that you think he existed. Sure, most historians agree with that... but that's not what the debate is addressing. This is about humanity, not existence. So stay on topic. Side: No
1
point
And I addressed that and answered the question. But for the person starting this debate to say....lets assume he existed is wrong. Christ existed it is a historical fact. I am on topic. Let me elaborate further on the claims I made, you must have missed them...... Christ asked Peter...Who do you say I am? This is the most pivotal question of Christianity. So I will start with this. Jesus was fully God. John 1:1 said....."The Word, was God." The Word was Jesus Christ. John 1:14 states, "The Word became flesh and lived for awhile among us." Titus 2:13 says, "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." 1 John 5:20 says, "...and His Son Jesus Christ the true God and eternal life." His birth name is the greek form of Joshua ..that means God saves. These scriptures refer to Christ as God incarnate. He did not become God...He came as God in human form. Jesus even claimed deity for Himself. John 10:30...."I and the Father are ONE." Statements like these are what authorities had a problem with, they were blasphemous. And they eventually led to his crucifixion. John 19:7..."The Jews insisted, we have a law and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God." Jesus affirmed this many times. He also claimed ultimate authority in many places. Not going to site all of them just a few. Mark 2:10 He could forgive sin. John 6:39-40. He claimed omnipotence, Mathew 28:18. He also demonstated several times that He had power over nature as He calmed the storms, turned water into wine...healing the sick, even power over demons. And he raised some from the dead. Godly qualities Jesus showed. He also was omnipresent...he said that he would be with all his disciples until the end of the age. John 1:3 says that through Him all things were made. Colossians 2:9 says that all the fullness of the Deity lives in BODILY FORM." Thomas said to Jesus...."My Lord and my God." Jesus did not correct him. But Jesus on the other hand was fully man although He did not sin. He was a human being. If He had not been completely human He could not have represented us on the cross. As a man He went through human experiences....Heb 2:16-18 He could fully understand human emotion. His birth was supernatural because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But His birth was that of a normal child born to a normal human woman. John 1:14...And the Word became flesh. Jesus also claimed to be a man. Read John 8:40...it says, "As it is you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." Acts 2:22 shows that people called Him a man because He had a human body, mind and spirit who shared human experiences and emotions. Like I said before He got hungry and thirsty.....Matth 4:2 and John 19:28 He got tired John 4:6 He needed sleep and food Matt 8:24 He experienced love and compassion Matt 9:26 He got mad at the people who defiled His Fathers house Matt 21:13 He denounced those who refused the truth of God. Mark 3:5 He even wept at a funeral John 11:35 He was anxious and troubled when He faced His crucifixion John 12:27 His human characteristics were as real as his heavenly ones. Both of His natures make up who He is. Scriptures show that you can't divide the two natures...or you deny who Christ said He was. Christ was God come in the flesh. He also was the perfect man who was without sin. If this was a lie as I said He couldn't have been the sacrifical offering for sin. Side: yes
1
point
|
From the standard biblical interpretation, Jesus could not have been human. The Bible defines the identity of an individual to lie in the soul or the consciousness. The body is viewed as just a shell. The only human characteristics that Jesus had were bodily, yet he lacks the essential features of what makes a human a human. Jesus could not sin and he could not make mistakes to learn from them. Side: No
Is the inability to sin and make mistakes the essential feature of humanity? Would that mean babies don't count as humans, since their intellect is too primitive to allow them to understand concepts like "wrongdoing" and hence they can't sin? Or if you argue that you don't need to understand what sin is in order to sin, would that mean animals are human? Animals can do "wrong" things (like mauling a person), though they don't understand that it's wrong. Side: yes
1
point
|
