My belief is that He was fully God and fully human. At this time He voluntarily relenquished certain aspects of His Godliness to accomplish His task, to redeem those who would repent and acknowledge Him as King.
then he could not have been fully god, if he was not fully a god. but as even PART human, and a son of jacob, he's held to the mosaic covenant.
His resurrection, which was acknowledged by the other apostles, is just one proof of His deity.
so lazarus is a god? what about all those skeletons god puts back together in front of ezekiel? are they all gods too? god controls life and death. he can resurrect whomever he pleases.
The proofs that you cite are not. PROOF, the establishment of a fact by evidence.
no, by logic. no amount of evidence will ever prove anything, just make it really stupid to think anything else. logically, do die, jesus has to be mortal. to be mortal, he has to be a man. as a man, he's held to the law. if he breaks the law, it defeats the entire point of your theology.
That is one of the criteria that I didn't mention because I wasn't sure that it was apparent to non believers. It's called a self evidencing quality in that it just reads like the word of God.
except it's plainly obvious to anyone who knows how to read anything with any degree of comprehension that there is more than one author in the bible. in fact, it's alos pretty obvious that there is usually more than one author within each book. genesis has at least 3. isaiah has 3. psalms has 5 separate sources, each with different authors.
reads like the word of god? how do you know what god writes like?
try reading some apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts, and tell me if you think they sound like god too. because most of them do. because what you're doing is mistaking cultural identity with deity.
Most people who handle large amounts of cash become so familiar with authentic currency that it is immediately evident when they handle a fake bill, unless it's printed on genuine currency paper stock.
i've operated a chas register for years. i had a counterfeit bill go through my hands once. i didn't even notice. because it felt real, and looked real. now, i check for watermarks. latent images put into the paper. and i look for the strip.
see, authenticity is really in the details. anyone can write a book that SOUNDS like what you think the bible is. but the trick is to look a little closer.
What about
psalm 2: the coronation psalm.
think about it. the lord said to me: "you are my son, i have fathered you THIS DAY." christians don't seem to be good with "this day" for some reason. but it means that whoever this is directed to was not god's son, and then BECAME god's son. that is what it says. it's talking about crowning a king, probably david.
psalm 22: we've talked about this one before.
it's interesting because it's the one jesus quotes when he's on the cross. (do you honestly think jesus hadn't read psalms?) look, they even cast lots over the clothes. wonder where the nt authors got that idea, hm? but look who's doing it: the evil ones of bashan. and after they've torn his body apart. read the text if you don't believe me.
psalm 72:
where does jesus conquer the enemies of the jews? where does he make them lick the dust? when did he rule from sea to shining sea? actually, if you read it at all, it's the last prayer of david, but at the top it says "of solomon." follow the parallelim, "endow the king with your judgements / the king's son with your righteousness." jesus didn't have a son, but david did. and his name was solomon.
psalm 89:
i don't even know what you're talking about. it's ethan the ezrahite talking about his relationship to david and god.
psalm 132:
is the "annointed one" business you're talking about? notice how it's always in parallel with david. it's possible it holds messianic significance, sure. (so does a lot of the ot) but it's hardly prophesy. it's talking about a king. any king. maybe even david. remember every king of judah was "annointed." that's what the word means.
22 especially for the obvious reason that it depicts scenes from the crucifiction
or rather, vice versa. like i said, pre-hoc propter-hoc fallacy. unique to religion, i think.
The fact that whoever wrote it wasn't aware that he was writing prophetically, seems compelling.
well it compells me to think he wasn't. and that whoever wrote the new testament doesn't know how to read hebrew very well. considering it does mention the specific parties at hand, and doesn't match the depiction of the crucifixion at all. it's about a pack of wild dogs tearing a man to pieces. have you even read psalm 22?
it's also easy to show that nt authors misinterpretted a lot of ot stuff.
and still, pre-hoc propter-hoc. if there's a corellation between two events, it's more likely that the second was influenced by the first than vice versa.
™ Version 4.2