What do you believe about Jesus?

Post Reply New Topic

I think he was just an ordinary man nothing more nothing less.

Mark 16
61...Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[a] the Son of the Blessed One?" 62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The "Blessed One" is God.

John 5
Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

The word for father here is 'Abba,' which is a word a child would use in reference to their literal Father, so Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God. To the pharisees and teachers, to use such a word in reference to God was nothing short of blasphemous.

When Christ talked about many coming after Him who would do greater works, He simply meant that He would empower people to perform greater signs and miracles than what He performed on Earth. Perhaps humans do like to create gods out of people who have great abilities, but raising people who've been dead for four days, restoring sight, healing sliced-off ears, taking five loaves of bread and two fish to feed an entire crowd of 5000 with 12 leftover baskets, calming a storm, walking on water in the middle of a storm... that's not a simple magic trick.

I have a hard time categorizing the Jewish people as having just been superstitious because their religious fervor for God--and very specifically, Yahweh--was incredible. The Law, the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, were everything that the Jews revolved their lives around. Children would spend their entire childhood learning and memorizing the Law, and paying attention and memorizing everything that their instructors taught them. To do such is quite an achievement, for there are about 627. They had to do more than just memorize them though; they also had to show that they understood the value of the different Laws. And only the elite few who had the greatest command of scripture would ever move on to be a priest or rabbi. Paul was a very educated man, a student of Gamaliel, who was the most respected rabbi to come out of that period. His command of the Greek language, too, is quite strong. I'm actually reading through Romans right now, and his depth of theology is impressive too (and keep in mind, this man is a byproduct of Jewish culture). Luke was a doctor by trade, and performed extensive research on Jesus before publishing his account. Historians agree that he writes as a very educated man and first-class historian. If Jesus was not legitimate, there certainly was enough educational substance to properly weed him out.

Seeing the lack of data supporting his existence he probably didn't even exist.

capriccio if you cant prove any of those people actually wrote those books what makes you think he said any of that?

Jesus to me was probably a real man (who actually knows?), or at least a character in a story written by another man. This figure known as Jesus travelled around the region teaching very important moral lessons to people, and empowered those same people to stand up for themselves and fight corrupt systems for the common interest of yourself and others (affectionately called brothers and sisters), and yet he used such soft and meaningful words while doing so.

I hold the figure known as a Jesus with the utmost respect. No man is perfect, and neither are his ideals, especially regarding sexism and other things, however given the timeframe and the state of society at that time, he was an important teacher, and\or an important story that traversed the desert.

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, 'Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?' And they said, 'Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.' He saith unto them, 'But whom say you that I am?' And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
And Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.'" (Matt 16:13-17)

"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, 'What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?' And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. (Mark 14:60-64)

Note the extreme reaction of the high priest, his accusation of Jesus' "blasphemy", and the people's insistence that Jesus be killed for his words. This further confirms the gravity and nature of Jesus verbal claim. And otherwise, when the chief leaders effectively accused Jesus of making himself "equal with God" (John 5:18), Jesus could have said, "Wait, no I didn't! Don't kill me for something I never said!"

The Bible cannot be used as an accurate reference for words Jesus said, as it was written centuries after his supposed existance. Not only that, but only the books which the Holy Roman Empire approved of were included.

Wil ibeleive in the concept of hism being the immacualte so nand messange of god (not all fiath should be subject to sicenticreasoning, tha int isnt faith) I think he's disappointed in the way theparctioners of the faith has seperated themselves, and ins some case like any religion become almost zealots. the message I get is that his teachings aremore of acceptance within reason consideing his dislike of the temples as they were, and genreally that his teaching are not part of a church but more a spiritual movement of sorts.

If non-Christians can produce a body (of Jesus), that would help nullify Christianity. For, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:14-17).

So, even in that early, Paul hung the whole validity of his own Christianity upon the premise that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. Why go out on that limb when you don't have to -- unless you were absolutely sure it happened? (Furthermore, why would the apostles suffer horrible deaths rather than simply recant, if they had even the tiniest doubt about Jesus' diety? I mean, the guy's dead -- why give yourself a slow and painful death just to not verbally deny him, if you believe he might be just a man, who's never gonna know you denied him anyway?)

See how Paul sets up all of Christianity for immediate disproof if Jesus' body could somehow be convincingly evidenced to have not been raised from the dead?

well first of all just because you cant find a body, doesnt mean he was raised from the dead. i hear its really hard to find bear skeletons out in the wild so maybe god raises them up? i know bears exist because i can see them thats the difference. none of us were there so you cant be 100% positive that everything written about him is exactley as it happend.

second people will die for stupid reasons, just look at cults; ie david koresh. i think you will be amazed at how increadibly dumb people are once someone stands up and says anything about who/what/where god is

and lastly, im convinced christianity is more about paul than jesus. wich is evidenced by the roman catholic church who decided to change a whole lotta stuff including the sabbath. i think if jesus could see whats been done to the religion he started, he would be completely shocked and wouldnt even recognize it

There are actually a few sources actually mentioning the publishing and writing of the Gospels. One was from the Bishop Papias, a personal friend of the apostle John. All we know is he was born before 70 AD and died in 155 AD. This is one of his writings preserved by a historian known as Eusebius:

”The Elder (referring to Apostle John) used to say this also: ‘Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.”

There is also the testimony of a disciple to the apostle John named Polycarp. His student Irenaeus preserved what Polycarp has told him:

”Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding thechurch there. After their departure (eg. Death), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in abook the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast (reference to John 13:25 and 21:20) himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”

I see another interesting topic is also being brought to the table...



There were individuals in Israel who vehemently hated him though, and wanted desperately to debunk His claim of being God. That's why they had Him killed in the first place. They then put up top hand-picked guards from Rome to watch the tomb to ensure no one came in or out, soldiers who, if were caught sleeping on the job, would be punished with death. This was done specifically because of Christ's claim that He would rise three days after his death. Shortly before Christ's death too, all his disciples deserted him, and after He died, they went and hid because they feared a backlash from the authority figures in Israel, so not only was there this problem of handpicked Roman soldiers guarding a tomb with an enormous rock that was sealed in place, but, frankly put, the disciples showed themselves to be cowards. There was no way for any human to come in or out of that tomb without some help from those guards. And, of course, if the disciples wanted to try and lie anyways and say that they saw Christ risen from the dead, all the Pharisees and officials had to do was walk over to the tomb, pull out the body, and put it on display in Jerusalem for everyone to see, but just make sure they did it at least four days after his death.

All the disciples except John were killed for their faith (failed attempts were made on John's life, but he never recanted), but what makes the disciples different was that they were the ones who walked and talked with Jesus and watched Him do all the miracles. They also all claimed to have seen Him after He was crucified and put in the tomb. If anyone could know that Christ was a hoax, it was most certainly them; no one was closer to Jesus than these individuals throughout His ministry. They scattered in fear once He was dead, but boldly died over the claim to have seen Christ risen. If their claim that Christ had risen and they had seen Him was just a lie and they knew it was a lie, why would they die for it? It makes no sense to die over something you made up.

As for Paul, I agree so far as there's an awful lot of things in the Catholic faith that do not line up with Scriptural teaching, and many solid Christians were killed because of refusal to become Catholic, but that's a whole other thread, so please let's not go here. But Paul's ministry was focused and pivoted around Jesus, so even with Paul being perhaps the most present character in the New Testament, everything in the entire New Testament comes back down to Christ.

Great moral teacher but not a god or prophet.

The fictional character Jesus and his story is just a plagiarized version of previous theological stories through history and the world.

you cant judge the new testement using its own theology dude. its OK if you want to have faith in it, but in no way shape or form can you come to a fair judgement about the new testement by using it to prove itself

Why?

ring around the rosie, here we go again. lets start off with this one: prove to me that matthew, mark, luke or john actually wrote those books without hersay or second hand accounts