The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

If by "the study of history" you mean the academics who are quoted in these HJ threads as believing Jesus was real, i.e. people such as Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan, EP Sanders and the tens of thousands who Ehrman in his 2013 book (Did Jesus Exist) describes as "almost all properly trained scholars on the planet" who he says agree with him when he says Jesus "definitely" "certainly existed", then you are talking about bible scholars, not about mainstream secular academic historians (most of whom probably have no professional interest in Jesus or the Biblical writing)

That "properly trained scholars" is so No True Scotsman that it should wear kilts

As I have said before Remsburg set forth the dreaded "it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" for the historical myth. Contrary to what apologists claim Remsburg did NOT say Jesus did not exist as a human being but rather the Jesus of the Gospels did not exist. Remsburg's actual point was that the Gospel Jesus story has next to nothing to do with the possible man that inspired them any more then the tales of Robin Hood or legend of King Arthur tell us anything about the possible men that may have inspired those stories.

Also Bart Ehrman himself in Did Jesus Exist give a definition of the Christ Myth theory that allows for a historical Jesus!

"[The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

Remsburg who stated he felt the evidence did show Jesus existed as a human being also said this: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith"

So here Remsburg who is just in the Jesus existed as a human being side is ALSO saying Jesus did NOT found Christianity but that was the product of those who claim later. So where does Remsburg fall in Ehrman's criteria?

 

[Leumas]

...The claim ANY part of the Testimonium Flavianum is valid is so full of logic tap dancing that it might as well be a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers routine. The James-Jesus passage has similar problems. Why did every Christian who bothered to write anything put James the Just's death near 69 CE when Josephus put the death of this James in 62 CE some 7 years earlier. In fact, Christians when as far as to say that James the Just had been informed of Peter's death which supposedly happened no earlier then 64. Little issue of James having a serious case of DEAD for 2 years there guys.

Even if genuine Tacitus likely got his information from the Christians directly or via Pliny the Younger. And if Tacitus in 109 CE knew this much about Christians why would Pliny be asking Trajan on how to deal with them in 112 CE? We know that Pliny the Younger was good friends and regularly corresponded with BOTH Tacitus and Suetonius. He could have asked either of them for information on how to deal with them and not bothered the Emperor.

Piltdown Man had less holes then this nonsense!

 

[Leumas]

....
So here Remsburg who is just in the Jesus existed as a human being side is ALSO saying Jesus did NOT found Christianity but that was the product of those who claim later. So where does Remsburg fall in Ehrman's criteria?

Yes... I have always been bewildered by this HOLY GRAIL QUEST for an HJ who has absolutely nothing to do with what the JC of the NT purportedly did or said or was.

And if they are going to cherry pick that he was a carpenter because it says in the NT that some people called him that then why not also accept that he was a delusional moron who went around blaspheming that he is the son of god and that god will give him a throne to sit on his right side when the world ends which was to be any moment by his reckoning.

It is as you said so much illogic tap dancing that Fred Astaire would have been impressed.

But what boggles my mind is when self acclaimed professed Christians, who therefore aver and avow that Jesus is a god son of God, start arguing for an HJ. And even more mind warping is when some admit that they know the Buybull is nothing but a collection of fairy tales and myths.

Don't they realize that if JC was just an HJ then they are worshiping Clark Kent who was not Kal-El but just a delusional pathetic daydreaming office worker besotted with an unrequited love for the high maintenance ambitious social climber Lois Lane who desired only a highflying highfalutin man and not a mild mannered pathetic desk jockey?

 

[Leumas]

..Whether you ask yourself WWHJD or WWMJD, please ensure that your answer is "follow the MA", and let this be a guide to your behaviour here.

He would go around calling people vipers and hypocrites and fools and promise them hell fire when his sky daddy got around to finally ending this world because they did not fall for his blaspheming chicanery.

He would go around cursing them to death and demanding people be brought and slain at his feet for not getting bamboozled by his gobbledygook.

He would call people who do not agree with him vile devils the sons of the Devil who need to be cut down like fruitless fig trees for rejecting his delusions.

So Agatha, I think pretty much most of the Buybull would be sent off to the AAH section and Jesus would be BANNED from the forum.

 

[dejudge]

Don't they realize that if JC was just an HJ then they are worshiping Clark Kent who was not Kal-El but just a delusional pathetic daydreaming office worker besotted with an unrequited love for the high maintenance ambitious social climber Lois Lane who desired only a highflying highfalutin man and not a mild mannered pathetic desk jockey?

They don't realise that Clark Kent is the same fictional character Superman without the "Super".

If you take away the "Super" from Superman you left with NOTHING but plausible fiction.

There is no historical data for Clark Kent in America as an office worker.

Clark Kent is the transfigured Superman.

They don't realise that HJ is the same fictional Ghost/God/man without the "Ghost" and "God".

Essentially, HJ "occupies" an EMPTY TOMB of history like Clark Kent.

 

[Leumas]

There is no historical data for Clark Kent in America as an office worker.

You are very wrong my friend.... there are many and they are independent too, which of course leaves us with having to apply "consilience, parsimony and all the rest".

Why do you hate the study of fairy tales being peddled off as history?

Look at this photographic evidence demonstrating FOR SURE that Clack Kent was not Superman and that they are two separate persons.... parsimony my friend parsimony.

[imgw=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Superman_296.jpg[/imgw]

Here my good chap look at this article written about Clark Kent quite independently of the photographic evidence... so consilience my good fellow consilience.

If you need more evidence go to the Me-TV channel and see how much more INDEPENDANT evidence there is.

Do you my dear chap think all those people in the picture below are crazy? Would they all be so stupid as to gather in a convention in honor of just a mythical person?

ALLLL those people KNOW there is a Clark Kent but your atheism is just blinding you from being able to accept it.

I used to be like that, but now I am much more intelligent and wise and I know the truth.

You dear fellow need to come to grips that all thats evidence, even if it is all fake, is still evidence. How can you not understand this... you need to get over your blinding atheism good friend.

(Notice the banner in the center of the image)
[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Comic_Con_2013_Bangalore_-_Inside.jpg[/imgw]

 

[maximara]

Yes... I have always been bewildered by this HOLY GRAIL QUEST for an HJ who has absolutely nothing to do with what the JC of the NT purportedly did or said or was.

Why? Robin Hood and King Arthur are in much the same boat.


Resmburg actually touched on the key issue: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Also one must remember Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE): who was portrayed as such a miracle worker that he was called 'the Pagan Christ" The key differences is that what are his personal writings have been preserved and [now lost] contemporary accounts were used to created the oldest work we do have on him: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana

So it is within the realm of Planet Reality that some part of the Gospel story is true. But the rub as with Robin Hood and King Arthur is which (if any) part?

"Historical" candidates for Robin Hood and King Arthur as much as 200 years away from when their traditional stories occur and we have the idea that the Jesus in the Talmud who by most accounts supposedly lived c 100 BCE was the "real" Jesus.

The Dead Sea Scrolls with the Teacher of Righteousness indicated there was possibly a teacher of some sort in the 1st century BCE era.

Richard A. Freund produced this very intriguing idea: The difference of opinion over the positioning of the Teacher of Righteousness leads me to conclude that perhaps all of these researchers are correct. A Teacher of Righteousness did lead the group in the second century BCE when it was established. Another Teacher of Righteousness led the sect in the first century BCE and finally another Teacher emerged in the first century CE.

 

[Leumas]

Resmburg actually touched on the key issue: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Where did those ideas come from? CERTAINLY NOT from the NT... so they must be a kind of GENERIC idea of a HERO applied as a filter on top of the NT to filter out the desired bits.

So even that is still a fictive generic hero prototype and that is not something that could have existed except in the sense that 95% of humanity had humble lives and died tragic deaths.

So yes people who live humble lives and die tragic deaths are a dime a dozen everywhere and every time and some guy called Jesus in 1 CE Galilee having lived a humble life and died a tragic death is not of any more importance than some guy called Jesus having lived in 2001 CE Guadalajara having lived a humble life and died a tragic death.

...
The Dead Sea Scrolls with the Teacher of Righteousness indicated there was possibly a teacher of some sort in the 1st century BCE era.

Richard A. Freund produced this very intriguing idea: The difference of opinion over the positioning of the Teacher of Righteousness leads me to conclude that perhaps all of these researchers are correct. A Teacher of Righteousness did lead the group in the second century BCE when it was established. Another Teacher of Righteousness led the sect in the first century BCE and finally another Teacher emerged in the first century CE.

Except for one problem... in as far as the Essenes' sense of righteousness is concerned this teacher of it would have been a VILE MORON by any sane standards.

Read this book to see how retarded these people were.

• James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Or watch this GREATLY EDUCATIONAL course of lectures (22 one hour lectures) by Eisenman.

 

[dejudge]

Why? Robin Hood and King Arthur are in much the same boat.


Resmburg actually touched on the key issue: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Jesus of Nazareth, a Jesus of humanity, is modern FICTION.

There is NO pathetic story of a human being called Jesus of Nazareth who died a tragic death.

The Belief in the RESURRECTION of the Son of God called Jesus is the FUNDAMENTAL Faith of Christians.

Remsburg has forgotten that there are hundreds of manuscripts Christians of antiquity which ACTUALLY stated their Jesus was NOT a man but GOD CREATOR from the beginning, the Son of God, true God of true God.

Remsburg has forgotten the very CREED of the BILLIONS Christians.

Remsburg has forgotten that the Jesus cult of Christians do NOT WORSHIP MEN as GODS.

Remsburg has NO idea what the GOSPEL is.

The MILLIONS of Christians BELIEVE the GOOD NEWS [the GOSPEL]
that Jesus THEIR LORD God and Savior RESURRECTED.

1 Corinthians 15:17

Andif Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

It was a FICTITIOUS event that INITIATED the Jesus story and cult.

The Jews KILLED the Son of God but he RESURRECTED--that is the GOSPEL [GOOD NEWS].

There is virtually no possibility that the Jesus cult of Christians was initiated by the tragic death of a mere man, a known IDIOT and/or a KNOWN False prophet and /or a Crazy man, who claimed he would resurrect on the THIRD day after his burial.

The BILLIONS of Christians BELIEVE the GOSPEL that JESUS of Nazareth, God's Own Son, the Creator, LIVES.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is hopelessly flawed--the very worst argument known to mankind.

The very fundamental problem of the HJ argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.

Christians ONLY WOSRHIP God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost

In effect, the supposed Jesus of Nazareth must have been a myth/fiction character.

The Jesus cult of Christians of antiquity ONLY WORSHIP MYTH/FICTION characters as Gods.

 

[maximara]

The HJ argument is hopelessly flawed--the very worst argument known to mankind.

Nah there are worst arguments

The very fundamental problem of the HJ argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.

Christians ONLY WOSRHIP God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost

The Jesus cult of Christians of antiquity ONLY WORSHIP MYTH/FICTION characters as Gods.

Actually that is only true of one subsect of Christianity NOT the movement as a whole:

"For which reason also, in the second, we have had, as in a mirror, a sight of their entire discomfiture. For they who oppose these men (the Valentinians) by the right method, do [thereby] oppose all who are of an evil mind; and they who overthrow them, do in fact overthrow every kind of heresy.

For their system is blasphemous above all [others], since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten." - Irenaeus: Against Heresies

So there were sects of Christianity that did NOT regard Jesus as god nor did they worship him as such.

In effect, the supposed Jesus of Nazareth must have been a myth/fiction character.

The one we wound up certainly but remember what we have is effectively a stacked deck.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is hopelessly flawed--the very worst argument known to mankind.

Nah there are worst arguments.

The argument that Pauline writings are authentic and composed c 50-60 CE may be just as bad or even worse.

The very fundamental problem of the HJ argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.

Christians ONLY WOSRHIP God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost

The Jesus cult of Christians of antiquity ONLY WORSHIP MYTH/FICTION characters as Gods.

Actually that is only true of one subsect of Christianity NOT the movement as a whole

You seem to have forgotten that the Jesus of the Pauline Corpus was a Myth/fiction character.

Actually there were MULTIPLE SECTS of Christians who did NOT worship men as Gods.

The SUBSECT of Christians, believers of Jesus the Christ, ONLY WORSHIP God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

The SUBSECT, the Jesus cult of Christians, did NOT worship any human being as Gods.

Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:47

The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Jesus MUST be a MYTH/FICTION character because he was WORSHIPED as a God by the Jesus cult.

Jesus was the LORD GOD from heaven according to the Jesus cult writer under the name of Paul.

So there were sects of Christianity that did NOT regard Jesus as god nor did they worship him as such.

You forget that the same Irenaeus claimed the historical Jesus [a mere man WITHOUT a human father] is a product of lies.

"Against Heresies" state that Jesus was BORN OF a Ghost which is evidence that the Jesus cult ONLY WORSHIP Myth/Fiction characters as Gods.

 

[dejudge]

Athenagoras "Plea for the Christians" is evidence that Jesus cult of Christians in antiquity did NOT worship men as Gods.

Minucius Felix "Octavius"

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man...

Theophilus "To Autolycus" is also evidence that there were Christians who did NOT worship men as Gods.

To Autolycus

You will say, then, to me, "Why do you not worship the king?"

Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with lawful honour, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshipped, but to judge justly.

An historical Jesus [ a mere man with a human father] makes no sense.

The Jesus cult Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.

The Jesus cult of Christians ONLY WORSHIP Myth/Fiction characters as Gods.

The Jesus character was MYTH/Fiction.

 

[maximara]

The argument that Pauline writings are authentic and composed c 50-60 CE may be just as bad or even worse..

No there is some degree of logic behind saying that seven of the epistles were written c 50-60 CE and where dictated-wrote by one author.

You seem to have forgotten that the Jesus of the Pauline Corpus was a Myth/fiction character.

No I haven't. The issue is the Jesus there a John Frum or Tom Navy.

Actually there were MULTIPLE SECTS of Christians who did NOT worship men as Gods.

The SUBSECT of Christians, believers of Jesus the Christ, ONLY WORSHIP God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

The SUBSECT, the Jesus cult of Christians, did NOT worship any human being as Gods.

Paul gives conflicting views as to what his visionary Jesus is. One place Jesus is a man born of the seed of David, another he is a demi-god, and elsewhere he seems to be god himself.

 

[Leumas]

Paul gives conflicting views as to what his visionary Jesus is. ..... another he is a demi-god,

What are these verses?

.... and elsewhere he seems to be god himself.

What are these verses?

And doesn't this TRINITY of contradictions prove that Paul whoever they were, were nothing but hucksters and bamboozlers or just plain idiots who couldn't keep their fabrications straight?

And either way, doesn't this imply that the Pauline writings are not to be taken as any kind of sane evidence for anything from which sane people should draw any sane conclusions other than that it was all just fabricated fakery like all the fakery ever devised by all the mountebanks and swindlers of all places and all times throughout history or just the delusions of retards like all the delusions of all morons of all places and all times throughout history?

Wouldn't trying to construe an HJ out of all this insanity be just an exercise in either further chicanery or just further insanity?

1 Corinthians 9:20-23

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."​

 

[maximara]

What are these verses?

Jesus as son of God (ie demi-god) Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:3, Romans 8:32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, and many others

Jesus is God himself: Philippians 2:11, Romans 9:5 in some translations (To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.)

And doesn't this TRINITY of contradictions prove that Paul whoever they were, were nothing but hucksters and bamboozlers or just plain idiots who couldn't keep their fabrications straight?

Remember these are visions and visions being akin to dream rarely make sense. The Pagan Greeks and Romans would go to the Oracle of Delphi who would babble some unintelligible gibberish that the local priest would "translate" into a prophesy. Daniel is the Jewish version of this and Revelation is the Christian.

Also remember that from internal clues in the Greek EACH of the seven Epistles currently credited to Paul is actual two or more letters woven together so what was written in relation to what is temporally shot to blazes. These contradictions may be an evolution of what this sect saw Jesus as: man, then son of god, and finally god himself.

Of course we aren't quite sure if Paul was writing to "churches" he had set up before dictating letters or if he was trying to convert the remnants of other messiah cults to the Jesus "brand".

 

[Craig B]

Jesus as son of God (ie demi-god) Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:3, Romans 8:32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, and many others

I see you've simply invented an equation "son of God"="Demi-god". Where is the Demi-God here?

Rom 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

He was an earthly descendant of David, made son of God through the resurrection, as David was through his anointing as king. Words could not be clearer, and the messianic "son of God" is here the same as was applied to David and Solomon in the Tanakh. We've been through all this before, by the way.

Jesus is God himself: Philippians 2:11, Romans 9:5 in some translations (To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.)

Thanks for the decency of observing "some translations". In other translations we read "Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised!" Or "Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!"

Now here is the passage more fully.

4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Does that mean that Israel possesses divine glory because Israel is divine? Surely not. It is the recipient of God's glory. In the light of such considerations please tell me which is the more likely translation of the last verse?

The Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.
Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised!
Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!

Not the first one, may we agree?

Philippians 2:1. Is it not generally agreed that Paul is not the author of this passage, and that it is part of a free-standing hymn, known as the "Kenosis Hymn"? We've been through that before, maximara.

Your post doesn't display you at your usual standard of scriptural analysis. But you have set yourself a difficult task, I admit: trying to show that Paul believed Jesus to be God.

 

[Mcreal]

... it was all just fabricated fakery like all the fakery ever devised by all the mountebanks and swindlers of all places and all times throughout history, or just ... the delusions of all morons of all places and all times throughout history?

Wouldn't trying to construe an HJ out of all this insanity be just an exercise in either further chicanery or just further insanity?

1 Corinthians 9:20-23

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.
I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."​

"I became like a Jew" makes it sound as if 'Paul' were a Gentile/pagan. I wonder which Christ and his law 'Paul' was 'under'.

The preamble in 1 Cor 9 before verse 20 is pretty wacky, too. In 1 Cor 9:3-14, Paul asserts his 'apostolic rights' to make his living from the gospel. His rhetorical questions presents rationale for his financial support.

 

[Mcreal]

Rom 1:3-4

3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

He was an earthly descendant of David, made son of God through the resurrection, as David was through his anointing as king. Words could not be clearer, and the messianic "son of God" is here the same as was applied to David and Solomon in the Tanakh.

Yes, the NT Jesus was/is very likely a rewrite of the OT David of the Books of Samuel; as a better David.

And 'Paul' could easily be based on Saul out of 1 Samuel:

• 1 Samuel 9:6;
• 1 Samuel 9:15-20; then
• 1 Samuel 10:3-7; & 10-11

One day Saul was waiting for Samuel. Samuel was coming to burn sacrifices. Samuel was the only man who should burn sacrifices to God. But he was late. Saul did not wait for him. Saul burned the sacrifices. At last Samuel came. He was angry at Saul, as Saul had not obeyed God. Samuel told him God would choose another king. - 1 Samuel 13:8-14; 1 Samuel 15:11–26

Samuel said unto Jesse: "Are here all thy children?" And he said: 'There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep.' And Samuel said unto Jesse: "Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither". And he sent, and brought him in. Now he [David] was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said: "Arise, anoint him: for this is He." Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. - 1 Samuel 16:11-13.

The David and Goliath story is then narrated.

Saul began to hate David more and more. David had served at Saul's court, had been married to his younger daughter, and had gone to battle numerous times at Saul's command, and Saul began to hope that David would die in battle. When Saul openly tried to murder him was when David took to the hills. For some 20 years David hid in the wilderness from Saul where he gathered an army from the outcasts of Israel. David wrote most of the Psalms at this time and God called him, "a man after My own heart."

7 years after Saul died, the tribes crowned David king at Hebron (supposedly ~1000 BC). David brought the Ark of the covenant (gold box containing the 10 commandments and symbolizing the throne of God) to Jerusalem, which he established as the capital (2 Sam 1-5).

David was Israel's greatest and truly ideal king. He was a great warrior and a man who loved God. He brought great peace and prosperity to the land. But David also had his weaknesses; he was "a sinner".

David took many wives, like other kings, even though this was forbidden by God. He even arranged the murder of one of his soldiers so that he could marry the man's wife who he had already seduced. Even though David was a great sinner, he was also very remorseful and repentant. David also took a census (headcount) of his army, showing a lack of trust in God. God punished David and Israel for his sins.​

The good qualities found in David are a picture of Christ, who would be a descendant of David.

As David, in his old age, looked back on his life and pondered on how God had delivered him from all of his enemies he sang:

2 Sam 22:4 I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised; so shall I be saved from my enemies.

2 Sam 23:1-2 Now these are the last words of David. Thus says David the son of Jesse; thus says the man raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue. . ."​

 

[maximara]

I see you've simply invented an equation "son of God"="Demi-god". Where is the Demi-God here? He was an earthly descendant of David, made son of God through the resurrection, as David was through his anointing as king. Words could not be clearer, and the messianic "son of God" is here the same as was applied to David and Solomon in the Tanakh.

EXCEPT in Romans 8:3 (KJV) we get:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

Romans 8:32 (KVJ)

He [ie God] that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things


2 Corinthians 1:19:

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

Your post doesn't display you at your usual standard of scriptural analysis. But you have set yourself a difficult task, I admit: trying to show that Paul believed Jesus to be God.

There is Philippians 2:5-6 KJV

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Ok how can any being be equal to God if they are not God?


Then you have Colossians 1:16 which in English is a headach. Is the 'him' there the Father or the Son?

1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV is no help:

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So what kind of nuances is Paul setting up that separates the Father and the Son here?