What do you believe about Jesus?

Post Reply New Topic

This tends to be a bit of a strong issue in terms of dealing with faith, and what is believed about him is important to the big three faiths in the world (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and varying cults have different ideas about who He was, or how He came about (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism). Some say He's the Son of God, others say He was just a prophet, and according to some He was a complete fraud. I'd like to know what people here think. Feel free to share why.

Second Person of the Trinity and He was both fully God and fully human.

Wow, just got up to get a drink and it's already got three votes! We tend to stay busy here.

I see Jesus as a very wise man, a human person though and most likely what is today referred to as a magician in the occult community. For me this means that he was very close to what he believed and that he was very knowledgeable. His God may have indeed been the Christian God, this is hard to tell roughly 2000 years after his death. I think he was very sure of what he taught and did. All in all, an only rough idea of an interesting men, but I feel comfortable to leave the blanks as they are.

He's not a person I take great interest in or a person I connect directly to the Christian God, since I see the Christian God himself different than what the new testament tells. I'm very interested in the occult, in the spiritual, philosophical, religious and the ancient believes and my ideas, including my personal impression of Jesus, is based on all this.

i dont know because i wasnt there. and im not taking some guys word for it

He was a woman.

Very wise man but not god.

Christians don't watch this!

Hey don't have a go at me, these aren't my views. don't shoot the messanger!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs7NbgkgbQU[/youtube]

We can't even say for certian who the historical person behind the messiah "John Frum" was, and that religion began in the 1930's. How could we possibly say whether or not there was a real person named Jesus for whom the myths were writen?

Don't worry I won't shoot

Though, I don't really see the relevance of the point they're making. I don't really know any biographies or historical accounts that wanted to make a point of whenever someone wanted to use the bathroom, even the more detailed ones. The Gospel accounts of Jesus are really only concerned anyways with just proving that Jesus was God.



Why does this mean that Jesus can't be verified?

Last edited by Capriccio on 12 Jan 2008, 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know I don't think thats Dudley Moore or Peter Cook's view's, they're in character as derek and clive. They just talk about random stuff, and be silly and offensive.

You have the cart in front of the horse.

First you have to establish that jesus existed. That can't be done. There's no independent records of jesus, writen at the time he lived. All accounts are second hand, and after the fact.

you know that seems to make sence, i think i read somewhere that people kept records of prominant figures, back in the day and i dont think jesus was ever mentioned..

Actually, it can be. We have the first four books of the Old Testament, which give full firsthand accounts of the life of Jesus by men who were extremely close to him (such as Matthew, Mark and John), characters such as Luke who were very close to the disciples and other characters in Jesus' life, and people like Paul who had the chance to get to know the disciples and talk with them. Matthew, Mark and John would be firsthand accounts, Paul and Luke would be secondhand (unless you consider that Paul converted because Jesus came to him in a vision), though were extremely close to the disciples and worked closely with them.

As of right now, we have enough old manuscripts to produce at least 5600 individual copies of the New Testament (included in this number are at least 200 full NT copies that are actually quite old), and 97-99% of the New Testament can be reconstructed without any doubts or second-guesses as to what is meant, written or implied, and a few copies written in approximately AD 130, 160, and 200 have been discovered.


The next leading document with this many old manuscripts is the Iliad, at about 643 reported as of 2004. In further comparison, Aristotle's poetics were written approximately 343 BC, and among the only 5 or so copies we have, the earliest one is dated about AD 1100. Ceasar's accounts of the Gallic wars were written between 58 and 50 BC, though the nine or ten copies we have were published at least one thousand years after his death. For the work by Josephus called The Jewish War, the best we have is one Latin translation published in the Fourth Century. We have about nine Greek manuscripts published in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, and two Russian translations from the eleventh/twelfth century. We only have about 20-something manuscripts making any mention of Alexander the Great, to my recollection (that was a few years ago I heard that, so there's probably more). For the most part too, we consider these sources reliable despite the huge lack of more original manuscripts dated much closer to the original events.

That being said, I don't really see how the video's point was valid, considering that accounts of a person's bathroom habits are scarce to begin with.

Last edited by Capriccio on 12 Jan 2008, 10:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Jesus and Co. were manipulated.