Was Jesus a Real Man and Was Mary a Virgin - an onlookers point of view.

I was unsure of were to post this so if it has to be moved that’s ok

I am fascinated by the whole jesus story, don’t confuse this with discussions about god and religion because the 2 are completed different, I want to focus on Jesus here so here me out. And these are strictly my thoughts on the matter looking at it from a middle point of view.

Did he exsist? That’s the big question I always see around the boards and there are compelling arguments from both sides of the spectrum (notice I say arguments and not proof the 2 are different). I remember watching various documentaries a while ago about the subject, historians were trying to trace back through time to see if this man actually did exsist and they found some interesting stuff. I can’t remember what it was called though so im going to put forward my own views and what I have found on it.

Now from what I have learned is that according to historians there was a man around at the time they refer to him as the historical Jesus. Some quick facts
Source

Jesus, also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth (born c. 6–4 bc, Bethlehem—died c. ad 30, Jerusalem), In Christianity, the son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity.
Christian doctrine holds that by his crucifixion and resurrection he paid for the sins of all mankind. His life and ministry are recounted in the four Gospels of the New Testament. He was born a Jew in Bethlehem before the death of Herod the Great in 4 bc, and he died while Pontius Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea (ad 28–30). His mother, Mary, was married to Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth (see St. Joseph). Of his childhood after the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, nothing is known, except for one visit to Jerusalem with his parents. He began his ministry about age 30, becoming a preacher, teacher, and healer. He gathered disciples in the region of Galilee, including the 12 Apostles, and preached the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God. His moral teachings, outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, and his reported miracles won him a growing number of followers, who believed that he was the promised messiah. On Passover he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, where he shared the Last Supper with his disciples and was betrayed to the Roman authorities by Judas Iscariot. Arrested and tried, he was condemned to death as a political agitator and was crucified and buried. Three days later visitors to his tomb found it empty. According to the Gospels, he appeared several times to his disciples before ascending into heaven.

Now after looking around a bit I found info on one of the documentaries I watched regarding stone tablets that was found –source

He called himself the King of the Jews, likely considered to be a Messiah. Just around Passover, the Romans killed him and crucified many of his followers outside Jerusalem. But his name was not Jesus, it was Simon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who died four years before Christ was born. Now, new analysis of a three-foot-tall stone tablet from the first century B.C., being hailed by scholars as a “Dead Sea Scroll on stone,” may speak of an early Messiah and his resurrection. Was Simon of Peraea real? Did his life serve as the prototype of a Messiah for Jesus and his followers? And could this tablet shake up the basic premise of Christianity?

I actually found this fascinating according to these tablets jesus was called simon ..hmm - info on the tablets

ABOUT THE STONE:
The tablet, called the Jeselsohn Stone, is three feet tall with 87 lines of Hebrew. It was found on the antiquities market a decade ago but not seriously studied by scholars until recently.
Based on the microscopic analysis of the soils, the tablet probably came from an area near the Dead Sea.
The writings found on the stone date back to the first century B.C.
Its writing is unique because it is ink on stone in two neat columns, rather than ink on parchment or engravings on stone like so many other biblical artifacts.
The stone is broken and much of the wording has been washed away over time. Many scholars believe the stone’s imperfect pockmarks and the ambiguity of the text itself actually validate the stone.
Much of the text describes a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel.
The stone is controversial because it could speak of a Messiah who will rise from the dead after three days, based on line 80, which leading Messianic scholar Dr. Israel Knohl has read as “by three days live.”
If this reading were accurate, it would imply that the idea of a Messiah who rises from the dead after three days predates the time of Christ — providing a missing link between Judaism and Christianity, since it suggests Jesus’ death and resurrection were not unique..

Intresting isn’t it.

About this simon

A former Jewish slave, Simon of Peraea crowned himself king, claiming to be the redeemer of Israel, the Messiah.He led a failed rebellion against Rome in 4 B.C. before Passover and set fire to one of King Herod’s palaces at Jericho and several other royal residences.Soon after the rebellion, Simon was captured in a remote canyon and killed or chopped in the neck; his corpse was left to rot amidst the rocks. For Jews of the time of Simon of Peraea, not burying a corpse was the ultimate humiliation.In the wake of his death, many of his followers were crucified.Dr. Knohl believes that Jesus knew the story of Simon’s death and from it had learned that a Messiah must die to fulfill his destiny.Accounts by the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus may be the only literary evidence from the time that either Jesus or Simon of Peraea existed.Archeological evidence of Simon’s rebellion may lie in the ruins of the ancient burned palace, which Dr. Knohl and archeologist Byron McCane set out to find in National Geographic Channel’s expedition.

On the said source there are pictures of these tablets so id go have a look. Now of course these are according to the ntional geographic sites insights, there are many out there who wholly disagree with what was found.
According to the next source theories suggest that jesus name was an misinterpretation

Yeshua is the original Aramaic proper name for Jesus the Nazarene, who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E. (A.D.) The word "Jesus" is actually a mis-transliteration of a Greek mis-transliteration. The Emperor Constantine even mistook Jesus for Apollo, the son of the Greek god Zeus. In Hebrew Yeshua means Salvation while the name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.

[ The name YH-Zeus comes from merging the Jewish god YHVH and the Greco-Roman god Zeus.
The popular first century Egyptian god, Serapis, was the result of merging the gods Osiris and Apis.
Serapis was an invented god, the brainchild of Ptolemy Soter I as a means of peacefully merging two warring religious factions. It was immensely successful.Merging the god of the Jews, YHVH, with the Greco-Roman god, Zeus, may well have been an attempt to duplicate Ptolemy Soter's success.A dying and resurrected Jewish Messiah would have satisfied the Jews. the Greeks, and the Romans.Merging YH-Zeus with the Egyptian god Serapis would encompass the rest of the Roman Empire.
"One Nation under One God"

This site is actually pretty fascinating so go and have a look –
source
There are of course those that believe that it was all a complete myth. That he was concocted up many years after his apparent death

What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

This guy actually makes some pretty good points in his paper

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek--every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts--such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

I suggest reading the paper in full though to get the gist of what he says
Another source

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that there was an Historical Jesus around 30CE. In fact, in order to conclude that Jesus never existed at this time, you must discount the simplest and most natural interpretation of a host of ancient documents, canonical and otherwise, each of which records the actions of Jesus, in the flesh. While neither space nor time allow a complete examination of each source, we will examine the degree of evidence found in the most important sources.
The first account of Jesus’ life and teachings we will consider is that found in the book of Mark. Mark is exceptionally important because it is widely accepted to be the earliest complete biography of Jesus, dated by almost all scholars to no later than 70CE (Van Voorst, 254). If this date is accepted, then we must suppose that there was a tradition of Jesus, executed by Pilate, less than 40 years after the crucifixion and during the lifetime of eye-witnesses. One particularly convincing line of evidence for this date is based on the following passage:
"And Jesus said to him, `Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.’"(Mark 13:2)

In Mark’s account, Jesus is firmly placed in history in several ways. First, he is described as interacting with individuals that even the most radical of critics acknowledge as real, historical people, such as Herod the Tetrarch, Herodias, and John the Baptist. Further, we know conclusively that these people existed in the first half of the first century (Josephus 18. 5. 12). Further still, Jesus is described as having visited villages around the city of Caesarea Philippi, which did not exist until the first half of the first century ("Caesarea Philippi"). Likewise, Jesus is described as being crucified, in Jerusalem, at the hand Pontius Pilate, who reigned from 26-36CE ("Pontius Pilate"). It is clear that the author of Mark believed Jesus to have existed at the traditional time.

More readings on jesus real or not have a look
source
source
source
source
source
some nice info on this one
source
source

Obviously what I have sourced so far are beliefs of a few people and everything I have read clashes with each other. And still questions remain, did a man called Jesus exist. I believe there was such a man back then who preached his beliefs at the time, maybe he did have the gift of healing ( known today that many people have gifts that cannot be explained away by science), was he the son of god? An entity? Well that’s another question altogether. Now we could debate forever about the bible – what it says etc but remember the bible was written by man so isn’t exactly wholly trustworthily in itself, there are of course other things that have been found- artifacts scrolls, scriptures, tablets that cannot be easily explained away and are still being investigated etc. so in my views im still not convinced either way, but as I said earlier there are some compelling evidence for either side.
Another thing I often see is the whole question of Mary being a virgin. Now this I don’t believe – for one she was married! . but no doubt someone will ask for proof etc well I cant give undeniable proof a few things I read -
source -read for full article

Conflicting quotations showing the diversity of beliefs about the virgin birth:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823. 1
"There can be no doubt as to the Church's teaching and as to the existence of an early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The mystery of the virginal conception is furthermore taught by the third Gospel and confirmed by the first." Catholic Encyclopedia 2

The virgin birth is an underlying assumption of everything the Bible says about Jesus. To throw out the virgin birth is to reject Christ's deity, the accuracy and authority of Scripture, and a host of other related doctrines that are the heart of the Christian faith. No issue is more important than the virgin birth to our understanding of who Jesus is. If we deny Jesus is God, we have denied the very essence of Christianity." John F. MacArthur, Jr. 7

another article

Considering the importance of the Virgin Mary in Christianity, the historian is struck by the scarcity of supporting evidence in the New Testament. St Paul never speaks of the virginal conception. All we learn from him is that Jesus had a Jewish mother. The few gospel allusions to Jesus' family in the accounts of his public life describe him as the son of Joseph and Mary, who had four more sons and several daughters. James, head of the Jerusalem church, is called "the brother of the Lord" and "the brother of Jesus surnamed the Christ" by Paul and the contemporaneous Jewish historian Josephus.

The doctrine of the virginal pregnancy is based on the accounts in Matthew and Luke. Mark and John ignore his infancy. Not even Matthew and Luke show any awareness in their chronicle of Jesus' public life of the details listed about his birth: miraculous conception, Roman census, star, magi. The infancy narratives are best understood as late additions to Matthew and Luke.
In Luke the virginal conception was announced to a girl on the point of marrying Joseph. Mary was baffled. How could she become a mother before they had come together? One may wonder whether her astonishment resulted from the knowledge that, not having reached the age of puberty, she was not yet ready for motherhood, for virgin in Jewish parlance could designate a girl too physically immature to conceive. The angel, in his answer, seems to argue that God could allow the pre-pubertal Mary to conceive just as he had caused the post-menopausal Elizabeth to become pregnant. Again in Jewish parlance, a married woman past child-bearing age was a virgin for a second time.

for full article
some intresting facts about the time and life of mary

Something intresting I read

In Catholic tradition, Mary is referred to as the Virgin Mary because of the doctrine of her perpetual virginity: even after giving birth to Jesus she never had sexual relations with her husband, Josephus, and never gave birth to more children. Many Protestants also believe that Mary remained a virgin, but for most it’s not a doctrine of faith. References to brothers and sisters of Jesus in the gospels suggest that Mary did not remain a virgin. This is one of many cases where traditional Christian doctrine runs into direct conflicts with text in the Bible. Given a choice, most Christians go with tradition.

read more

another source

When we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear even from the context of many of the scriptures that He did. The only major religion that chooses to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholicism dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary continued in her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more children. This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows that though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.

Scriptures supporting that Mary had other sons –

Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Matthew 27:56
"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."
Mark 3:31
"There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."
Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

There is of course a lot more to support the fact. Now we know she wasn’t a virgin.
More sources
source 1
source 2
so the question remains really why is Mary referred to as the virgin Mary? All the teachings tell us that jesus was a miracle conception hmm
another view

The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council, where we read: Who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. The Ever- virginity of the Mother of God is testified by Her own words, handed down in the Gospel, where she expressed awareness of the immeasurable majesty and height of Her chosenness: My soul doth magnify the Lord... For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed... For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His Name (Luke 1:46-49).

When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:
a) In the Gospels there are named four "brothers" (James, Joses, Simon and Jude), and there are also mentioned the "sisters" of Jesus—no fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and His sisters, are they not ALL with us? (Matt. 13:56).
On the other hand, b) in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the "kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lord's earthly life proceeded.
c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of "half' brothers and sisters or of cousins.
*From Fr. Michael Pomazansky, trans. Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 187-189.

Again conflicting according to them they were half brothers and sisters very confusing stuff lol. But from what I know about the times back then women were betrothed to a man at a very young age often around 12 years old ( her family picking the husband) and historians put her age when Jesus was born at around 14- 17 years old. Of course this is all conjecture and there is no undeniable proof either way just what researchers have uncovered and what various religious people have taken from scriptures.
More intresting sources –
source 1
source 2
source 3
Views of a youth group doing a bbc show

I could discuss this topic a lot more and im still not convinced either way to be honest. Everything is wrapped up in to much religion and not enough facts which in all honesty would be very hard to come by either way so what does ats think? Was Jesus a real man ( out with the son of god thing I mean an actual human being) and was mary actually a virgin so was given a gift by god?

Some intresting ats links obviously there are heaps more about this subject on ats so just run a search
Christianity is based on Egyptian Myths - Jesus Christ is Horus

Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

The Evidence For Jesus' Existence is Overwhelming,

The pre-creation existence of Jesus

Please ignore this post.

A very good post. And a very good read. I like the different angle you took on this. Most compare the similarities between the Egyptian gods, and the Hindu's Krishna for historical reference that he was a made up character.

I personally lean toward him having been an actual historical character who evidently had an impact on the people and the politics of his day. He seems to have been a well educated, and well travelled man. Familiar with the teachings and beliefs of the cultures of his day, and had a mission he believed in. We may never know for sure what that mission was though.

S&F&

appears everything presented here was written by men (many anti-Christ/anti-mankind/Father/Son), so...??
most has been debunked though have'nt read much on the stone yet
and not that I rely on it either way
have you read about the voice I heard as I began to open a Gideon NT?
what I heard ended up being written verbatim but was before having read/known any!

Originally posted by Klassified

yup am off that view point aswell. i always believed that such a man exsisted.. was he the son of good?? who knows. but as you i think that he was gifted and truly believed what he preached and knew what he was talking about. thanks for the s&f

reply to post by Rustami


not quite sure what your getting at? explain?

I find it rather odd ,that many things written on ancient tablets,are considered to be some source of spiritual truth.

Honestly..if someone 3000 years from now,happened to stumble upon a chest of old books on spirituality, would they be inclined to think it was some mystical truth,that they should devour ,and propogate.

Just as there is all sorts of "spirtual half truths" ,and misguided views on what truth is today,I'm sure the same can be said for many things written long ago.

If there is a living God,He really needs to give discernment,and guidance to those who are looking to HIm for answers...and it is up to Him to do that,if He really wants us to understand and follow.

Personally, I think Jesus was a real person and he did become a christos or anointed one, but I think the virgin birth was a latter addition to the doctrine, most likely added as christianity began to try to compete with the other religions for converts. You see the same thing with the story of the Gautama Buddha. In the original story, though he was a prince the buddha was still an ordinary man who gained enlightenment, but there are many later texts attributing great miracles to his birth as well, even one where when he was born he had a full set of teeth and could talk and even walk and of course lotus blossoms bloomed from his footsteps. In my opinion the virgin birth actually takes away from the story of christ, because it makes him special from birth and different then everyone else, making it more difficult with people to identify with him and try to become like him, which was one of his teachings. I also believe that he was actually just a man who like the buddha achieved a spiritual state and becoming divine. I think that is why little is known of him from his time of birth until his baptism by John, because before that baptism, he was just a man like everyone else, but, and according to the gospels, after he is baptized then a dove; the symbol for the holy spirit, descends from the sky and a voice is heard saying "Behold my son."

Peace be with you

My honest opinion is the following:

A guy named jesus existed, actually many did, but this one was special... He could do magic tricks, was good with slipping things from hand to hand, and was probably the first David Coperfield...

A woman named Mary also existed, she was probably jesus' mother. Was she a virgin? I don't think so... Was she a paranoid schizo for seeing things and trying to tell her husband how she got pregnant? Maybe, or she knew that she had married a dumb idiot and that she could make up a story to get away with adultery (for which she would have been stoned)...

A guy named Joseph existed... He was the most gullible guy ever. He was told that something came down from the sky and nailed his wife and made her pregnant without losing her virginity... WOW... How many of us guys would believe that one? Unless he knows his wife's a schizo and just didn't believe her knowing that the child is his or that he just didn't care that someone else banged her because he wanted to get rid of her anyway...

That's my take on the jesus affair...

reply to post by ronishia


Star and Flag for an excellent, well researched and well presented post. My hat is off to you, ronishia, I am happy to see another religion researcher at work here. I too have seen conflicting information on the man Christians call Jesus, and have posted several times with new info I have come across.

Biggest Conspiracy of them All, Jesus is Dead and Buried

Conspiracy of the Century...Jesus and Lucifer, One and the Same!

I have a good friend I stay in contact with who is a Jewish Rabbi, and a scholar of Hebrew. He has told me that for one, Jesus is an English name, and no man ever existed in those times with that name. Secondly, he tells me, anyone who raises Jesus to the status of a Messiah and a God is in mortal danger of losing their soul. He says this Messiah did not fulfill the Ancient prophesy laid down in the Torah, and that the True God would never incarnate on Earth. Perhaps the entire story, and whole truth will never be known.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by ronishia

 

Star and Flag for an excellent, well researched and well presented post. My hat is off to you, ronishia, I am happy to see another religion researcher at work here. I too have seen conflicting information on the man Christians call Jesus, and have posted several times with new info I have come across.

Biggest Conspiracy of them All, Jesus is Dead and Buried

Conspiracy of the Century...Jesus and Lucifer, One and the Same!

I have a good friend I stay in contact with who is a Jewish Rabbi, and a scholar of Hebrew. He has told me that for one, Jesus is an English name, and no man ever existed in those times with that name. Secondly, he tells me, anyone who raises Jesus to the status of a Messiah and a God is in mortal danger of losing their soul. He says this Messiah did not fulfill the Ancient prophesy laid down in the Torah, and that the True God would never incarnate on Earth. Perhaps the entire story, and whole truth will never be known.

I'm hoping the real truth will be known someday. So much truth can be twisted, and if there is a satan ,I'm sure he does hate Jesus, to the point of trying to convince others he is Jesus.

It gets to be such a twisted up mess,and the only way I see the confusion ending, is that the living God does some kind of miracle, that all people sincerely seeking truth,will undoubtedly be shown it.

I really hope this could happen,because the confusing mess of spirituality I see nowadays,just makes me want to walk away from finding any truth in spiritualityat all.

reply to post by ronishia


FACT: We can't prove whether Jesus existed or not.

FACT: We can't prove the miracles were (and are) true. (That the temporary suspension of the natural order occured)

FACT: Even if we assume the miracles as true, we can't prove that Jesus was sent by a God, or that because of miracles his moral and ethical teaching was the "best".

FACT: We can't prove that one human sacrifice, less than 2000 years ago, in the less literate parts of the desert, absolves an entire species from "sin".

FACT: We can't prove God exists.

Hope that clears a few things up.

And a couple of question to anyone who may wish to answer;

If you were in a situation where someone was trying to perform a human sacrifice, would you be bound to prevent it, to protest it?

If it was today, would you believe it was Jesus? if it was less than 2000 years ago, would you believe it was the savior sent by the entire creator of the universe and all that is?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by ronishia

 

If you were in a situation where someone was trying to perform a human sacrifice, would you be bound to prevent it, to protest it?

If it was today, would you believe it was Jesus? if it was less than 2000 years ago, would you believe it was the savior sent by the entire creator of the universe and all that is?

edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Todays situation would and is a whole lot different to what things were back then, in those days people were afraid of crossing the church, its preachings or even the dictators...those were law. from a very young age they are taught it. the difference here is that Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice he was punished according to the church and law as back then crucifying was a very typical punishment for *crimes* ( i use the term loosely here). and no-one believed Jesus was the creator of universe....technically he was the son of god, here to show us the way so to speak..the church were afraid of him because people were following his teachings and turnign their back on them, questioning there judgment. .ravings of a madman? maybe but i dont want to get into the whole religious aspect of it tbh. im more curious about the man himself. i believe he was a very talented man, spoke well and with conviction, enough so that he died for what he believed whether rightly or wrongly. Not so much different from the religious people of today who are hardcore. but thats a different thread altogether.

reply to post by ronishia


sorry but most the regular posters on these forums have seen repeatedly so hate to just always throw out there even when I know there are many new members and potentially unknown new viewers as well as existing that may have not read... anyway, at a time when I ridiculed any and everything Jesus/God whatever and after an abortion had taken place I sat down to open a Gideon NT one night that had been left on the kitchen bar and as soon as I began to open the cover I heard an invisible audible voice as if sitting on my left like a friend would, say my name then "I am Jesus, I died for your sins, believe in Me and you will never perish"

then came across these later (though there are many more just as specifically interesting)-

Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”-Acts9

Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice -John5

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby -Ephesians2

He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.-Revelation19

For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” -19

the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died -2Corinthians5

all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. Therefore He says:
“ Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”-Ephesians5

the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever.-1Tim1
www.biblegateway.com...

reply to post by ronishia


Nice well researched posting. A comment on the language issue. The area had a Hebrew population, however they had Greek rulers before the Romans. Greek would have been a common language of the people who wanted to do business with the current ruling class. When the Romans came to rule, Greek would have been the language of the day for the people unhappy with the change in government. Hebrew was spoken at home, but the common language was Greek. Latin didn't become all encompassing until much later. It is not surprising to me, that the gospels should be written in Greek, it was the language used by those who considered themselves not Roman. Much like spanish is used by Hispanic in the USA at home, and American English in used to communicate to the rest of the country.

Excellently researched post. Well done

I must say, that I too have struggled for years with the whole is Jesus real or just a fairy tale enigma too. It is so annoying that outside of the bible there is so very little evidence of a man who changed the world forever.

To be completely honest, if it were not for the video below and the fact that I have personally experienced phenomena in a large crowd of Jesus's mother Mary, I would call the bible absolute bunk. But I have seen, and experienced something or someone who claims to be the mother of Jesus. She talks about him all the time. And because of it, I am obliged to believe Jesus was (is) real and the bible is true...

Jesus is real for sure, i met him

Much Love

reply to post by ronishia

Todays situation would and is a whole lot different to what things were back then, in those days people were afraid of crossing the church, its preachings or even the dictators...those were law.

Of course it is, and we can thank Humanity, not God.

For if we still lived under the dictatorship of a theocratic state, homosexuality would be a state crime, cheating would be considered a crime, technically the war should be prevented by one of the commandments.

I understand that peopel back then had different culture, different social "norms" - I'm not blaming them for it - I'm just acknowledging that we have enlightened ourselves since then.

The difference here is that Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice he was punished according to the church and law as back then crucifying was a very typical punishment for *crimes* ( i use the term loosely here).

Indeed, he was Crucified by the Roman State for blasphemy for claiming he was the Messiah - The obvious message he being to rebel against authority or religion to free people - It doesn't verify he was sent by the ruler of the universe, nor does it confirm that ALL of his ethical and moral teaching was thereby correct.

.ravings of a madman? maybe but i dont want to get into the whole religious aspect of it tbh.

There have been martyrs and freedom fighters throughout history; Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and even Jesus (IF he existed)This still doesn't prove they were any different from you and i, and they are not infallable, their dogma or preaching could be improved.

And just because Jesus may have provided ethical and moral teaching that was "good" AT THE TIME, doesn't make ALL of it fit for OUR time.

Certainly the message of love can be extracted from such a half-baked tale.

im more curious about the man himself.

I would have to condede and state he was an ordinary man with a mission.

I can't prove Socrates existed, but his wisdom doesn't ask to be submitted to, he doesn't scare you with promises and threads regarding afterlife. His wisdom is free of dogma.

. i believe he was a very talented man, spoke well and with conviction, enough so that he died for what he believed whether rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps he did exist, and perhaps he was.

. Not so much different from the religious people of today who are hardcore. but thats a different thread altogether.

Indeed, don't get me started.

If Jesus returned, would you know it was him? Would you believe it?

It would be interesting to get your answers to my two questions in the below thread:-

www.abovetopsecret.com...