jesus

My opponent did not directly discuss the topic at hand but rather seems to have copied and pasted from some other topic. Never the less, I will try to respond, based on what I think he is trying to say. My position is that Jesus is not the son of god, and the bible which says that he is, is either: a)inaccurate, or b)not literal. a) inaccurate: The authors had clear motive for writing the bible, as they were trying to start and spread a religion, and the bible was a way of doing so. It may be based on facts but that doesn't mean all contained therein is true. A sample of some inaccuracies in the bible: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever", that doesn't seem to be true; I am a Jew, from the house of Jacob. We did not accept Jesus. Rather his disciples made him popular amongst the pagan nations of the world. The house of Jacob rejected him. Contradictions: Mathew 1:17 "from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." For a total of 28 generations from David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-31. Lists 43 generations from David to Jesus. The location of his appearance: Mathew 28 and mark 16 place it in Galilee, while Luke 24 and john 20 place it in Jerusalem. b)Not literal The reason to assume it is not meant literally is based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" This was said to the entire Jewish nation obviously figurative, so to in the case of Jesus it is probably meant figurative. Not only that but Jesus was a Jew so when the new testament says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god. Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man: Matthew, Chapter 1:"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." It is also interesting to note that in 1:18 it says the Holy Ghost and not simply "the lord" or "god". In Luke as well 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" ... "thee shall be called the Son of God" It is interesting to note that it says "he shall be called", indicating that he wasn't literally son of god. Luke 3:23 ...being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... indicates he had a human father. That chapter ends with, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was not literally the son of god. Lastly Jesus is referred to as "son of man". My opponent admits this in "4." but says it's not literal. Or maybe it is the statement son of god which is not literal. A much more likely interpretation. Rebuttal: "1. Who wrote the gospels?" This cannot be relevant to theory "b". My opponent seems to have been attempting to prove the validity of the NT: This is not so for 2 reasons: 1) it could be someone else wrote it or the church itself wrote it. 2)Even if they did Wright it doesn't mean they didn't error, add, lie, embellish, or fabricate, to make their religion more attractive. "2. Reason to lie about who wrote the gospels?" This cannot be relevant to theory "b". Even if they did write it doesn't mean they didn't error, add, lie, embellish, or fabricate, to make their religion more attractive. My opponent does not provide evidence for the claim he makes that these were unimportant people. Moreover he admits this was not the case with Paul. "3. More evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" This cannot be relevant to theory "b". Note Papias only speaks of mark, why not the other 3. Furthermore, why should we believe them, they were both just members of the church. Furthermore, they were over 100 years after the fact. "4. Did Jesus claim to be God?" Huh? The fact that people claim that Jesus claims to be god proves that he was god? My opponent here defends against a blatant statement of Jesus mortality by saying it is not to be taken literally and refers to son of man in denial. But why should we assume that the verse in Daniel is not referring literally to a son. "5.Gospels written too far after Jesus died to be accurate?" This cannot be relevant to theory "b". This again is not a proof but rather a defense against the problem of the fact that the NT was written long after the fact. 6-10 Discuss the resurrection which is not relevant to this debate, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't mid debating this sometime in the future but this was not the topic.