What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

By a strange coincidence in another thread I'm following, in another forum, someone addressed this very point
"To follow-up on this again, because it is very important: as far as the Jesus character's instruction to "love your enemies" being something powerfully original and intrinsic to the unsurpassed ethical teaching of the Galilean preacher man -- it is actually the opposite of that in context. Jesus and the apostles' "enemies" here are the Pharisees, and by extension, "the Jews" (as they are objectified throughout most of the gospels). Persecution by said "enemy" is to be welcomed, because it vouchsafes the authenticity of Jesus and the apostles' mission. "The Jews" and "their" ancestors have killed and persecuted all of "their" prophets; thus their continued persecution ensures a great reward in heaven to those who have secretly uncovered the true meaning of "the scriptures" -- that the Kingdom of God actually belongs to the Gentiles, not "the Jews" at all.


Luke 6:22-23 NIV
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

Luke 6:26
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


Christianity as we have it was an anti-semitic cult. This is not something to be hand-waved away. Anti-semitism was not an unfortunate by-product of the religion, or the racial attitudes of the day, but the very heart of the emerging proto-orthodox church's ideology. They had read ancient scriptures and figured out that since "the Jews" had "killed all their prophets," then the Most High God must have actually meant for the Gentiles to "supersede" the Old Covenant. All of the NT literature was written with this attitude. The anti-semitisms are not "later redactions" but were right there from the start."
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-22100.html#p1215932

I was struck by this commentary, as it's the first time I've read such a rebuttal of the 'Love your enemies' injunction.

Thanks for this report.

In addition, if there's any couple of sayings that seem even closer than "Love your enemies" to the earliest levels of textual strata, it's "There are last which shall be first" and "Lose your life to others to save it". Do you know of any extended reflections on these two as well, or do you have any reflections on them yourself? They too do not seem drummed up "by committee", anyway.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

Could you give us your reaction to the idea that 'Love your enemies' isn't some ground-breaking altruistic guide to living, please?
Had you read it before?
Does it make sense?

 

[Acleron]

You've just thrown out half of ancient history. If you had your way, a photoshop den would be busy 24/7 painting out everyone from Leukippos to Thales to Hillel to Hannibal to Boadicca to Pythagoras to Confucius to Apollonius to Sun Tzu to Brhaspati to Ajita to Narayana to hundreds more. The sheer ignorance of ancient history shown in your virtual screed here is utterly appalling.

Of course, I know that, immediately now, every one of the a-historicists here will eagerly hold on to and obsess over -- individually -- each and every one of the figures I've just cited, and place each one in convenient isolation, so that they don't have to honestly address just what those hundreds and hundreds of figures illustrate as a whole: THE FACT THAT PROFESSIONAL ANCIENT HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH FIGURES WHOSE DOCUMENTATION IS EQUALLY SPARSE. THAT'S MY CHIEF POINT.

What are you going to do about that? Just ignore the FACT that hundreds of other figures have precisely the same kind of sparse documentation. If you have an ounce of integrity, you will now tell us which other figures in addition you'd consign to the paint-out shop as well. Go on, tell us. And make the list BIG, please. Otherwise, you show yourself as being guided by two things only: flagrant bigotry and Texas-style pride of your own ignorance.

Stone

The approach to the evidence appears quite different between historical figures and HJ. IanS posted this interview of Huddlestun. In it he explains the evidence required for such historical figures. The independent evidence is not available for an HJ. But even Huddlestun casually says that HJ existed.

When we examine the data for many of these figures we find such evidence, for others the evidence is less convincing. If the evidence doesn't exist for a personage such as Boudicca then why do we accept she existed? Presumably because Tacitus and Cassius Dio recorded her actions in events that were independently verified by archaeological evidence of the destruction of Londonium at the accepted date. But if Dio just reported Tacitus and no evidence was found and we suspected that Tacitus told porkies and could be biased in what he reported we would be in exactly the same position as we are with HJ.

 

[Stone]

Could you give us your reaction to the idea that 'Love your enemies' isn't some ground-breaking altruistic guide to living, please?
Had you read it before?
Does it make sense?

Well, for starters, everything in the core nexus of Q sayings -- and even in Mark -- that's heard from Jesus himself seems directed solely at the Jewish community. The very notion that Gentiles could ever supersede the Jewish community doesn't even emerge until Paul. So that Gentile-directed aspect of your writer's argument is very tenuous -- and anachronistic -- indeed.

However, the notion that the Jewish powers-that-be as a group are being trashed by Jesus repeatedly is not that off. He does that constantly and in the earliest textual stratum. What's different is that there's no trace of the classic Gentile-vs.-Jew syndrome in this stratum. Instead, it's the honest Jew in the street against the Vichy style of the Jewish authorities accommodating the Roman jackboot. Jew versus Gentile instead is more Paul's and the GJohn's speed.

The very sentiment "Love your enemies" itself may not necessarily be exclusively altruistic but it doesn't strike me as having a dark agenda either. Instead, it's sometimes struck me as humorous: a kind of "You're now in good company" wisecrack.

The altruistic cannot be discarded entirely either: In the same stratum as "Love your enemies" after all, we also have sentiments like "If they ask you for your ___, give them your ______ too." That reflects a level of pro-active solicitude for the "other" in addition that is not reflected in your writer's interpretation. Purely for its context then -- while a degree of irony cannot be ruled out -- "Love your enemies" seems too much a of piece with the remark about tendering one's pieces of clothing to be simply a case of preening oneself on one's martyrdom and who one's enemies are. Instead, there is just too much additional concern expressed for the actual welfare of one's enemies themselves for this all to be that simple.

Cheers,

Stone

 

[Stone]

The approach to the evidence appears quite different between historical figures and HJ. IanS posted this interview of Huddlestun. In it he explains the evidence required for such historical figures. The independent evidence is not available for an HJ. But even Huddlestun casually says that HJ existed.

When we examine the data for many of these figures we find such evidence, for others the evidence is less convincing. If the evidence doesn't exist for a personage such as Boudicca then why do we accept she existed? Presumably because Tacitus and Cassius Dio recorded her actions in events that were independently verified by archaeological evidence of the destruction of Londonium at the accepted date.

No, we accept her because there aren't bigots today who were abused by their parents in childhood waving a stick over them telling them bogus tales about her and then reacting in fury as adults against everything and everyone to do with her.

Stone

 

[Darat]

No, we accept her because there aren't bigots today who were abused by their parents in childhood waving a stick over them telling them bogus tales about her and then reacting in fury as adults against everything and everyone to do with her.

Stone

Sorry but I can't make head or tails of your comment?

 

[IanS]

You've just thrown out half of ancient history.

.
.
... The sheer ignorance of ancient history shown in your virtual screed here is utterly appalling.
.
.
Otherwise, you show yourself as being guided by two things only: flagrant bigotry and Texas-style pride of your own ignorance.

Stone

Calm down (my bolding in the above quote). This is a serious discussion, not a slang-ing match.

Re. the highlighted sentence -


The ancient writing we have about Jesus, which actually only amounts to the biblical writing, does not describe a human historical figure. It describes a supernatural Son of God.

Which other ancient supernatural gods are regarded by modern “historians” as actually real people?

To put that another way - people like the Roman emperors and various ancient kings and queens were written about in their own time as real people. And there is abundant evidence for them doing all sorts of real human things. The fact that their sycophantic courtiers often tried to inflate the rulers ego by telling them they were gods who would be sure of a special place in heaven, does nothing to change the fact that such rulers were being described entirely as real human people.

Jesus was not being described as a real human person. He was being described as the heavenly supernatural Son of God.

 

[pakeha]

Well, for starters, everything in the core nexus of Q sayings -- and even in Mark -- that's heard from Jesus himself seems directed solely at the Jewish community. The very notion that Gentiles could ever supersede the Jewish community doesn't even emerge until Paul. So that Gentile-directed aspect of your writer's argument is very tenuous -- and anachronistic -- indeed.

However, the notion that the Jewish powers-that-be as a group are being trashed by Jesus repeatedly is not that off. He does that constantly and in the earliest textual stratum. What's different is that there's no trace of the classic Gentile-vs.-Jew syndrome in this stratum. Instead, it's the honest Jew in the street against the Vichy style of the Jewish authorities accommodating the Roman jackboot. Jew versus Gentile instead is more Paul's and the GJohn's speed.

The very sentiment "Love your enemies" itself may not necessarily be exclusively altruistic but it doesn't strike me as having a dark agenda either. Instead, it's sometimes struck me as humorous: a kind of "You're now in good company" wisecrack.

The altruistic cannot be discarded entirely either: In the same stratum as "Love your enemies" after all, we also have sentiments like "If they ask you for your ___, give them your ______ too." That reflects a level of pro-active solicitude for the "other" in addition that is not reflected in your writer's interpretation. Purely for its context then -- while a degree of irony cannot be ruled out -- "Love your enemies" seems too much a of piece with the remark about tendering one's pieces of clothing to be simply a case of preening oneself on one's martyrdom and who one's enemies are. Instead, there is just too much additional concern expressed for the actual welfare of one's enemies themselves for this all to be that simple.

Cheers,

Stone

Q? Are you saying you accept the Q theory?
How about Marcion?



I can see your point about the Gentile/Jewish conflict, but how about addressing the actual texts themselves?


Luke 6:22-23 NIV
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

Luke 6:26
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

And how about this particular altruistic comment from Jesus
Mark 16.15-16

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned .

Hardly a turn the other cheek sort of philosophy.

 

[smartcooky]

You've just thrown out half of ancient history. If you had your way, a photoshop den would be busy 24/7 painting out everyone from Leukippos to Thales to Hillel to Hannibal to Boadicca to Pythagoras to Confucius to Apollonius to Sun Tzu to Brhaspati to Ajita to Narayana to hundreds more. The sheer ignorance of ancient history shown in your virtual screed here is utterly appalling.

<polite snip>

THE FACT THAT PROFESSIONAL ANCIENT HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH FIGURES WHOSE DOCUMENTATION IS EQUALLY SPARSE. THAT'S MY CHIEF POINT.

There is a great difference between "sparse" and "non-existent"

I'm not asking for all of this...

"1. Written, contemporaneous records of the Romans showing that Pontius Pilate was responsible for executing a man called Jesus, along with two common thieves, approximately 2000 years ago in Palestine.

2. First person eye witness accounts of things that Jesus did, actually written by the eyewitness, and written at the time.

3. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First person eye witness accounts of the crucifixion, again written by the actual witness.

4. Multiple, independent sources for all of the above.[/FONT]"

I'm just asking for any of it.... 1 or 2 or 3 or 4.

Just one mention in passing from a contemporaneous eyewitness, perhaps by one of the many tens of thousands of devout followers when Jesus allegedly held court with the multitudes, would be enough to convince me that there might at least be something to the alleged historicity of Jesus. BUT THERE IS NOTHING!!!

To this day, after 100+ years of religious archaeology, searching by thousands of "Bible Scholars", there is a total absence of evidence. The facts are that no-one has ever found the tiniest shred of evidence outside of the third hand hearsay accounts in the NT that were anonymously written 50+ years after the alleged events took place. How can this be when Jesus was purported to be known far and wide by the multitudes for his miraculous healing powers, his accurate prophesies and his teachings of the Word of God. He would have been a name on everybody's tongue, and yet about him, and at the time, NOT ONE THING WAS WRIT. No carved name on a stone tablet, on a fascia, a paving stone, wall decoration, a papyrus scroll. NOTHING!!

 

[calebprime]

The approach to the evidence appears quite different between historical figures and HJ. IanS posted this interview of Huddlestun. In it he explains the evidence required for such historical figures. The independent evidence is not available for an HJ. But even Huddlestun casually says that HJ existed.

When we examine the data for many of these figures we find such evidence, for others the evidence is less convincing. If the evidence doesn't exist for a personage such as Boudicca then why do we accept she existed? Presumably because Tacitus and Cassius Dio recorded her actions in events that were independently verified by archaeological evidence of the destruction of Londonium at the accepted date. But if Dio just reported Tacitus and no evidence was found and we suspected that Tacitus told porkies and could be biased in what he reported we would be in exactly the same position as we are with HJ.

No, we accept her because there aren't bigots today who were abused by their parents in childhood waving a stick over them telling them bogus tales about her and then reacting in fury as adults against everything and everyone to do with her.

Stone

Sorry but I can't make head or tails of your comment?

I presume he means:

No, we accept her because -- unlike those raised Christian -- hypothetical followers of Boudicca weren't abused by their parents in childhood waving a stick over them telling them bogus tales about her and then reacting in fury as adults against everything and everyone to do with her.

Meaning, perhaps, that a Christian upbringing is abusive, which causes a sort of backlash in the culture.

Sorry to butt in. Stone can explain.

 

[Stone]

I'm just asking for any of it.... 1 or 2 or 3 or 4.

There is not any of that for umpteen historic figures throughout the ancient world either. Name all those figures, please, or admit you're bigoted and know nothing of ancient history. And make an argument why each and every one of those figures is also not historical.

Otherwise, you show no better understanding of ancient history than you did going in.

Stone

 

[Stone]

I presume he means:

No, we accept her because -- unlike those raised Christian -- hypothetical followers of Boudicca weren't abused by their parents in childhood waving a stick over them telling them bogus tales about her and then reacting in fury as adults against everything and everyone to do with her.

Meaning, perhaps, that a Christian upbringing is abusive, which causes a sort of backlash in the culture.

Sorry to butt in. Stone can explain.

You've got it about right. Whole generations have not been brought up on bogey-man lies about Boudicca the way they have on bogey-man lies about a magic Jesus. Children abused with a bogus magic Jesus pounded into their young heads sometimes react in adulthood in the same irrational way that mythers do against the entire professional discipline of modern historical analysis.

But no cult has grown up around Boadicca -- nor abusive habits by parents in its wake. So the sparse data on Baodicca is accepted because no cult abuse over Boadicca has turned young victims of abuse into myther bigots in adulthood.

Stone

 

[smartcooky]

There is not any of that for umpteen historic figures throughout the ancient world either. Name all those figures, please, or admit you're bigoted and know nothing of ancient history. And make an argument why each and every one of those figures is also not historical.

Otherwise, you show no better understanding of ancient history than you did going in.

Stone

You quit with the personal attacks and I'll consider your request.

You've already had one post mod-edited for personal attacks. If you can't debate without vilification, then I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[tsig]

There is not any of that for umpteen historic figures throughout the ancient world either. Name all those figures, please, or admit you're bigoted and know nothing of ancient history. And make an argument why each and every one of those figures is also not historical.

Otherwise, you show no better understanding of ancient history than you did going in.

Stone

Your claim, your burden.

 

[IanS]

There is not any of that for umpteen historic figures throughout the ancient world either. Name all those figures, please, or admit you're bigoted and know nothing of ancient history. And make an argument why each and every one of those figures is also not historical.

Otherwise, you show no better understanding of ancient history than you did going in.

Stone

It's quite unnecessary for anyone here to name lists of "ALL" figures of any type throughout ancient history. Nobody has to do anything of the sort.

It's already more than sufficient that posts above have pointed to three huge and directly relevant groups of historic figures inc. Roman emperors in general, Egyptian pharaohs with such evidence as mummified remains, and countless kings and queens from all corners of the globe.

But Jesus is in any case in a completely different category to all those real human figures. Jesus was described in all the original biblical writing as the supernatural son of God, not as a normal human person.

Added to which - none of those other ancient historical leaders are of the slightest importance to the daily lives of anyone alive today (except academic historians who make a living writing about them). But in complete contrast Jesus and Christianity are of huge importance to the daily life of everyone on the planet.

And someone of that vast importance does require a rather higher and more convincing standard of evidence than wholly irrelevant ancient emperors.

 

[Craig B]

... The ancient writing we have about Jesus, which actually only amounts to the biblical writing, does not describe a human historical figure. It describes a supernatural Son of God.

That expression did not originally necessarily refer to a supernatural heavenly figure. The expression "son of God" is a reference to the lineage of David, and its eternal claim to the throne of Israel. Neither David nor Solomon are presented as supernatural figures in the OT. But here is "Son Of God".

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Then you smuggle in an even more exalted title.

Which other ancient supernatural gods are regarded by modern “historians” as actually real people?

Jesus is not presented as God, in the Synoptics at least or in Acts. See eg Acts 2:22. In fact we see him being gradually and progressively divinised, after being "supernaturalised". Has it not been pointed out in this thread that Mark presents an "adoptionist" doctrine, whereby an entirely human Jesus is endowed with power following baptism? Nonetheless certainly doesn't become God even then. And to answer your question, a few ancient gods may indeed have been "Euhemerised" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euhemerism) real people. Imouthes (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Imouthes) has been suggested as an example. But that is of no moment as far as this discussion is concerned. You then smuggle in a "heavenly"!

Jesus was not being described as real human person. He was being described as the heavenly supernatural Son of God.

Not so. He most certainly IS described as a human being.

Mark 3:20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself ( ... ) 31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

He's got a mum, and she thinks he's gone nuts. And he's got (remember this?) brothers. Also, what's he made of?

Romans 1:3 concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Mark makes him special at baptism, Paul at the resurrection (about which the authentic Mark has nothing to tell us!)

So we have plain references to a human Jesus, gradually and progressively overlaid with more and more strongly supernatural interpretations of his nature.

 

[Stone]

It's already more than sufficient that posts above have pointed to three huge and directly relevant groups of historic figures inc. Roman emperors in general, Egyptian pharaohs with such evidence as mummified remains, and countless kings and queens from all corners of the globe.

Not analagous at all. You're talking kings and queens -- and their equivalents. I've carefully confined all my cites to figures who introduce new ideas as civilians, or who are rebels from an underclass, not public officials. Remember this?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9382462#post9382462

I cited -- AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF MANY, MANY MORE -- Leukippos to Thales to Hillel ... to Pythagoras to Confucius to Apollonius ... to Brhaspati to Ajita to Narayana. Those are figures analogous to Jesus the rabbi. They are not Kings and Queens.

Pay attention.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Q? Are you saying you accept the Q theory?
How about Marcion?



I can see your point about the Gentile/Jewish conflict, but how about addressing the actual texts themselves?


Luke 6:22-23 NIV
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

Luke 6:26
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

And how about this particular altruistic comment from Jesus
Mark 16.15-16

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned .

Hardly a turn the other cheek sort of philosophy.

This is illustrative of the sort of pitfalls awaiting those who don't know which sayings show the most colloquial style and stem from the earliest stratum. Of course, in your case, you made a good-faith effort to acquire this information, which was undercut by the rules of this forum referencing "information overload". So here is another attempt to supply that information. If this too gets "disappeared", I give up.

Here are the parallel sayings keyed to Luke's numbering:

Chap. 3: 7-9; 16b-17
Chap. 4: 1-13
Chap. 6: 12; 17; 20-23; 27-33; 35-49
Chap. 7: 1-3; 6-10; 18-19; 22-28; 31-35
Chap. 9: 57-60
Chap. 10: 2-16; 21-24
Chap. 11: 2-4; 9-11; 13-26; 29-35; 39b-44; 46-52
Chap. 12: 2-12; 22-31; 33-34; 39-40; 42-46; 51; 53-56; 58-59
Chap. 13: 18-21; 24; 26-30; 34-35
Chap. 14: 11; 16b-19; 21; 23-24; 26-27; 34-35
Chap. 15: 4-5; 7
Chap. 16: 13; 16-18
Chap. 17: 1-4; 6; 23-24; 26-27; 30; 33-35; 37
Chap. 18: 14b
Chap. 19: 12-13; 15-24; 26
Chap. 22: 28-30

The text of these passages can be found here:

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffWritings/jbcq002.htm

Furthermore, the earliest mss. for GMark -- the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus -- do not even have the passage you quote at the end. They end Chap. 16 with the fleeing of the women from the empty tomb at Verse 8 instead. So everything following that is evidently added in much later and is not original to the text.

Stone

 

[Belz...]

There is not any of that for umpteen historic figures throughout the ancient world either.

Sucks for them, then, because that means we can't draw conclusions on them either.

 

[IanS]

That expression did not originally necessarily refer to a supernatural heavenly figure. The expression "son of God" is a reference to the lineage of David, and its eternal claim to the throne of Israel. Neither David nor Solomon are presented as supernatural figures in the OT. But here is "Son Of God".Then you smuggle in an even more exalted title. Jesus is not presented as God, in the Synoptics at least or in Acts. See eg Acts 2:22. In fact we see him being gradually and progressively divinised, after being "supernaturalised". Has it not been pointed out in this thread that Mark presents an "adoptionist" doctrine, whereby an entirely human Jesus is endowed with power following baptism? Nonetheless certainly doesn't become God even then. And to answer your question, a few ancient gods may indeed have been "Euhemerised" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euhemerism) real people. Imouthes (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Imouthes) has been suggested as an example. But that is of no moment as far as this discussion is concerned. You then smuggle in a "heavenly"! Not so. He most certainly IS described as a human being. He's got a mum, and she thinks he's gone nuts. And he's got (remember this?) brothers. Also, what's he made of? Mark makes him special at baptism, Paul at the resurrection (about which the authentic Mark has nothing to tell us!)

So we have plain references to a human Jesus, gradually and progressively overlaid with more and more strongly supernatural interpretations of his nature.

Sorry, but what you say is manifestly untrue. Jesus is most definitely described in the biblical writing as supernatural.

And he is most definitely described there as God's supernatural son in heaven.

That is certainly NOT a human being.

How many humans can you list who have been witnessed to walk on water and rise from the dead into the sky in front of hundreds of people?

The biblical writing is not describing a human person.