| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/17/2005 7:44:23 PM | Was Jesus Christ a real, historical person?
The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example see Luke 3:1, 21-23.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of " James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." ( The Jewish Anttiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all manuscripts.
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote " Christus [Latin for "Christ"], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."- The Complete Works of Tacitus ( New York, 1942), " The Annals," Book 15, par. 44.
With references to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states: " These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesu, Which was disputed for the first time and on inadoquate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, durinh the 19th, and the beginning of the 20th centuries."-(1976), Marcopedia, Vol. 10, p. 145.
Was Jesus Christ simply a good man?
Interestingly, Jesus rebuked a man who addressed him with the title " good teacher," because Jesus recognized not himself but the his Father to be the standard of goodness. (Mark 10:17-18) However, to measure up to what people generally mean when they say that someone is good, Jesus surely have been truthful. Indeed, even his enemies acknowledged the he was. (Mark 12:14)He himself said that he had a pre-human existance, that he was the unique Son of God, that he was the Messiah, the one weho was coming was foretold throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Either he was or he was what he said or he was a gross impostor, but neither option allows for the veiw that he was simply a good man-John3:13; 10:36; 4:25; Luke 24:44-48.
Was Jesu merely a prophet whose authority was similar to that of Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, and other religious leaders?
Jesus himself taught that he was the unique Son of God (John 10:36; Matt. 16:15-17), the fortold Messiah (Mark 14:61, 62), that he had a pre-human existance in heaven ( John 6:38; 8:23, 58), that he would be put to death and then would be raised to life on the third day and would thereafter return to the heavens.(Matt. 16:21; John 14:2,3) Were these claims true, and was he thus really different from all other true prophets of God and in sharp contrast to all self-styled religious leaders? The truth of the matter would be evident on the third day from his death. Did God then resurrect him from the dead, thus confirming that Jesus Christ had spoken the truth and was indeed God's unique Son? (Rom. 1:3, 4) Over 500 witnesse actually saw Jesus alive following his resurrection, and his faithful apostles were eyewitnesses as he began his ascent back to heaven and then disappeared from their veiw in a cloud. ( 1 Cor. 15:3-8; Acts 1:2, 3, 9) So thoroughly were they conviced that he had been raised from the dead that many of them risked their lives to tell others about it.-Acts 4:18-33.
Why did the Jews in general not accept Jesus as the Messiah?
The Encyclopedia Judaica says: : the Jews of the Roman period believed [ the Messiah] would be raised up by God to break the yoke of the heathen and to reign over a restored kingdom of Isreal." ( Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 11, col. 1407) They wanted liberation from the yoke of Rome. Jewish history testifies that on the basis of the Messianic prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:24-27 there were Jews who expected the Messiah during the first cebtiry C.E. (Luke 3:15) But that prophecy also connected this coming with 'making an end of sin,' and Isaiah chapter 53 indicated that Messiah himself would die in order to make this possible. However, the Jews in general felt no need for anyone to die for their sins. They believed that they had a righteous standing with God on the basis of their descent from Abraham. Says A Rabbinic Anthology, " So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities commited and lies uttered by Isreal in this world." (London, 1938, C. Montefoire and H. Loewe, p. 676) By their rejection of Jesus as Messiah, the Jews fulfilled the prophecy that had foretold regarding him: " He was despised, and we esteem him not."-Isaiah 53:3, JP.
Before his death, Moses foretold that the nation would turn aside from true worship and that, as a result, calamity would befall them. (Deuteronomy 31:27-29.)The book of Judges testifies that this ocurred repeatedly. In the days of the prophet Jeremiah, national unfaithfulness led to the nation's being taken into exile in Babylon. Why did God also allow the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E.? Of what unfaithfulness had the nation been guily so that God did not protect them as he had done when they had put their trust in them? It was shortly before this that they had rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
I have plenty more but I will post it all later. It took me a really long time to post that.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/17/2005 10:46:47 PM | Just bringing this one back to the top. Post your thoughts please.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 1:13:48 AM | | Jimmy, thanks for posting this. Many try to say that Jesus was a myth or just a man, yet He is the central most influential figure in World History. There is not even a close second. Could a myth accomplish that? We do know for a fact that the Romans were throwing Christians to the lions and other persecutions in the early days of Christianity. These martyrs were convinced of the Truth of the Gospel. These men knew Jesus when He walked on earth. It is improbable they would have become martyrs if they did not believe fully in what they were being martyred for. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 1:28:55 AM | True enough. Only in the recent years have people questioned whether Jesus existed or not. There are many answers including the Bible but many refuse the Bible.
" a great teacher never strives to explain hi vision-he simply invites you to stand beside him and see for yourself."-The Rev. R. Inman
Makes you wonder why Jesus never wrote a book himself. And why are millions of people willing to put their life on the line for something that supposedly doesn't exist?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 1:41:40 AM | I dont know, there are people today that convince other, supposedly intelligent people to strap a belt full of explosives onto themselves and press the button. Funnily enough a lot of this goes on in the same area Jesus was apparently active in. Are the people of that region especially gullible or naieve.
I dont doubt that Jesus existed, perhaps as a very charismatic teacher, possibly a bit of a nutcase. The whole country was in the grip of Rome at the time so I can see freedom fighters and rebels being active and working with people like that to spread the rebellion. But the son of god, I dont believe that for an instant. Maybe used as the Messiah to drum up support among the Jews. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 9:36:06 AM | | Mr. Nergal, you reject that Jesus was the Son of God. Now I would like to ask you a question. If the Son of God did pay us a visit, in what form do you think He would take? What personna? How would He act? | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 1:17:03 PM |
Jesus wrote the entire Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit, by dictating
Yikes, and a large part of his fan club has developed this amazing knack for dictating to others as well.
I think I would rather be taught and learn my way into right living, than be "dictated" in the right way of living. Being "dictated" to eliminates options for modern day learning techniques. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 2:05:14 PM | drbinhb-- I agree and the fact is that the bible was compiled 100 years after Jesus' death! Jesus never wrote any of it. The OT is based on the Jewish Torah and the NT is second hand accounts of what Jesus is supposed to have said and done. The apostles wrote these accounts and there are also supposedly some prophetic books as well. Just think some folks need to get and keep the facts straight.
Cat | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 2:57:16 PM |
I remember when a secretary use to take "dictation" by short hand.
Now I am really confused, this type of dictation would have been taken 1st hand, yet
Then the oldest book of the New Testament was written over 75 years after Christ was nailed to a tree [/quote)
Which would indicate the book was "channled" using a "meduim", yet taken as dictation? | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 3:01:56 PM |
He himself said that he had a pre-human existance, that he was the unique Son of God,
So God only had one son? I guess that means that Adam and Jesus are the same person. Luke 3:38 says that Adam was the son of God. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 4:01:36 PM | Please read the above posted rule number 2. No using the forums as a Chat if you wish to chat or contact someone use the messaging system.
I remember when a secretary use to take "dictation" by short hand. Do you?
Please try to have something meaningfull to say instead of word games. In the meantime please read all my essays that I posted on this web site. You might learn a great deal more than what the world's satanic educational institutions have taught us.
Thank you.
You are directing these comments at whom? If anyone was chatting it has been you to Jimmy. I just happened to agree with drbinhb’s coments. My point is that you in a post above post are misrepresenting the facts by saying that Jesus wrote the bible which is not factual, but this is not surprising given the tactics used by some Christians on these forums. How about we try to keep the facts straight if we are going to discuss this issue? And last I checked you are not a moderator so you have no say as to how others post. All these threads are about interpretations and semantics if you folks were really honest with yourselves. If this were not so then there would not be so many schisms within Christianity. No one can really say which interpretation is the right one at this point.
Cat | |
|
LANGA
|
Joined: 8/28/2005
Msg: 12 | |
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 4:18:46 PM | Jesus Christ-my Personal Lord and Saviour, the Son of God, The Anointed One, The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, The Alpha and the Omega, The Son of Man, The GOD-MAN, The Redeemer, The Deliverer, The onle Name by which we all should be saved, The Way, The Truth, The Life, The PRINCE OF PEACE, The LORD of LORDS, The KING of KINGS yes Jesus Christ, The second Person of the Holy Trinity, The Messiah that the Jews and all people have been waiting for. The Only Begotten Son of God. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever.
Amen. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 6:55:40 PM | | definately Amen. He loved all. Even those who drove the nails in his hands. His second coming is upon us. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 7:29:52 PM | Count,
You quoted something and the asked a question off of the quote I'm assuming or why else did you post the quote?
Count says:
So God only had one son? I guess that means that Adam and Jesus are the same person. Luke 3:38 says that Adam was the son of God.
How did you get that that quote says God had only one son? It just says he was a unique son of God. Where do you get that Jesus and Adam are the same person?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 10:23:13 PM | | Jimmy, do you know what the word unique means? | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/18/2005 11:46:39 PM | | I do. I am REALLY unique. :) | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:39:58 PM | For example, F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has said: "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar." In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that historians often have to contend with documentation of differing quantity and quality. In many cases (Sanders provides the examples of Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill) historians are fortunate to have access to a good deal of documentation, although much of it has to be interpreted critically. In some cases, and Sanders presents Alexander the Great as paradigmatic, the available sources tell us much about his deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. Sanders considers the quest for the "historical Jesus" to be much closer to that of Alexander than to Jefferson or Churchill. Nevertheless, he concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought" (1993:3). Paul Barnett has also pointed out that "scholars of ancient history have always recognised the 'subjectivity' factor in their available sources" and that "they have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand". He notes that modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation.
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 2:56:24 PM | ...Someone call me?  | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:03:53 PM | I don;t recall anyone saying "$hit" . | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 3:07:27 PM | | Oh... Jesus might not like that so much. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 8:40:11 PM | at count
adam was the 1st 'man'......he was sin-free until he sullied himself, thus no longer worthy to be in God's grace................man had fallen and so it required a sacrifce of divine origin in order to redeem fallen man.......luke 3;38 denotes God as the originator, or the creator........note that this is not denoted in the description given by matthew in chapter 1. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 8:47:03 PM | | Why was a sacrifice needed at all? If salvation is by grace then God could hand out this grace without a human sacrifice. | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 8:51:59 PM | | Well, I like to believe that Jesus is the true son of God, but the bible is not a very good reference for this fact as the bible contains many contradictions, its accounts of Jesus were written LONG after his death, by men who didn't even know him. I find it odd also that Jesus didn't write down anything, and I also find it odd that there is absolutely no historical evidence of his life/death besides the bible.......very strange for such a prominant figure in man's demise don't ya think? | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 8:57:30 PM | at count
if no sacrifice was needed, then adam could have sinned all he wanted..........salvation is given free of charge (an act of grace), to those who accept the one being sacrificed! | |
|
| Jesus Christ
Posted: 9/29/2005 9:08:10 PM | | I'm still not seeing the connection. Couldn't God have offered grace to Adam millenia before Jesus? | |
|
Home
login 
