The Three Possibilities of Christ

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I attend Catholic church, Roman Catholic.
I am old enough to remember the mass in LAtin.
There are three Bible readings at each mass.
One from the old testament
one from the Epistles
and one from the Gospels.

the emphasis is on the gospel,
followed by the epistle and thirdly
supported by the old testament.

I share this not to convince you enlightened one
of the truth, but rather to enlighten others as to the truth,
so that your absolutely certain word is contradicted with facts.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

If Christ wasn't who He said He was... He either knew it or didn't know it. If He knew He wasn't, He would have been a hypocrite and a liar. If He didn't know He wasn't, He would be deluded and a lunatic. If He WAS who He said he was... Then Christ is our Lord and Savior.

I can't argue one way or the other for the sanity or truthfulness of Jesus until you define who Jesus claimed he was.

I'm not sure that Jesus ever claimed to be "Christ". If he really existed, he might have fancied himself as one of the messianic figures that the Jews were expecting.

I don't think that Jesus ever claimed to be the savior of humanity either. He certainly didn't claim to be GOD.

Who, in your opinion and for the sake of argument for this thread, do you think Jesus claimed to be?

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


He knew Jesus the best? He never met the guy! That's the height of ignorance right there, to believe a guy who never even met Jesus knew him the best.

reply to post by slugger9787


I wasn't raised Catholic, I was raised Methodist and Baptist and from what I remember, mass was almost always about how to worship Jesus.

Sure, they recited his words here and there (mostly John 3:16 and the like), but the majority of the teaching focused on the sacrifice that Jesus made and how we needed to have faith in his death and resurrection. That is Pauline doctrine, not Jesus doctrine. Jesus' focus was on his message, NOT his death.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

However, since we have historical records showing where the Apostles went, what they taught, and how they were martyred, and we have the books written by them, we must therefore assume that the Apostles existed. In this case, there is only one choice left.

The error here is that the konai Greek gospel (the new testament) was written after 100 AD. That would mean that the writers were not the original disciples. Also, the historical references come from the same book, so are not the most reliable historical text. We should also note that Greek and Roman historians were in the habit of telling a good story rather than letting the facts get in the way.Therefore, we must except that the original was most likely not 100% fact and that since it has been eddied, revised, and rewritten several times; it has many gaps in true representation of the original events. Please keep in mind the the idea that Jesus was divine before he died was introduced in the conference in 300 AD (The water and wine analogy). So, the question that you are asking was not even brought up until 267 years after his death.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


"It is either day or night"

it could be dawn, twilight, or evening. It is day AND night depending on your view (on earth)

My point is, there are many possibilities. Jesus could be a man and maybe the stories about him are inaccurate. Maybe he was "the lord" but there are forgeries and misunderstandings. maybe it is ancient stories transformed and retold.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

Hi, Follow,
That's quite a Socratic view there, and a very good argument - (also helpful as far as I haven't read the "Chronicles of Narnia", though I know who their author was and will get to it eventually.)

That said, I was on board with the logic
until this part:

If they were telling the truth, then the obvious results would be:

Jesus WAS born of a virgin,

None of them saw this or can verify it.

He WAS the Son of God,

None of them know or can verify this, either. It is what the writers thought, and has not been proven. Hearsay. And it doesn't matter who "said" it - that's the trouble with hearsay.

He DID perform miracles,

Or he was a mystic who knew how to manipulate energies and perform exceptional feats of seeming supernatural quality. Gurus and yogis and illusionists do the same thing today.

He WAS tortured and killed,

None of the people who wrote this were there.

He WAS buried and was resurrected three days later,

Or he was healed by his own abilities with mind over matter, in conjunction with prompt and adept (for the time) medical treatment from his friends, and RECOVERED

He DID come to his apostles and show that He had risen,

Or recovered

and He DID physically ascend to the Kingdom of God.

Again, the people who were there didn't write anything down.

The apostles DID see all of these things, hear all of these things, and gave up their own lives for their Lord and Savior.

The apostles who wrote the Gospels did so long after he had died,
and as 3NL said, when you went to "Paul knew him best" the whole thing became suspect.

Paul NEVER knew him, never ONCE saw him in the flesh. All he had was hearsay, a 'vision', and a keen sense of how to be a successful politician. He was very ambitious. Jesus was not.

So, you still have to PROVE the story, and since there is NO BODY to examine (except possibly the remains of the man buried in Kashmir named Issa, who is very plausibly "Jesus", who, after his recovery, naturally fled his homeland (duh! They would only kill him again!) and lived out his long, normal 80-some years safely in India among the people who trained him WHILE HE WAS AWAY in the "Lost Years") you cannot. No one can.

Occam's razor. Also, until they allow those plausible remains in Kashmir to be exhumed, (which they probably won't), there has YET to be discovered any actual remains in graves or crypts of ANY of those people.

Sorry. We "know" as far as possible that he had physician friends, that the soldier did not break his legs, that he was taken down WELL before the expected time for a 'successful' execution by crucifixion, that some people DID in fact survive crucifixion, that Jesus was "gone" for 20ish years and came back with exceptional skills and developed abilities that are not "unique" to him alone...

and he himself never wrote anything down nor did he instruct anyone to write it down. If I am incorrect about any of that, please let me know what I'm missing. And leave out the "pierced through the heart" nonsense. It's been debunked 'to death'.
Also, the shroud was covered in BLOOD. When he did appear (if he did, which is contingent on whether or not he even lived at all) he still had wounds, was hungry, and weak. Add to all that, the too-many similar stories from myths and legends FAR predating him - too many of the same elements are attached to Jesus to make it a "unique" or "probable" story from what we can tell about reality.

But then, we don't know about much of 'reality', and some gnostics do have abilities beyond the 'normal people.'

Extraordinarily charismatic? yes. A master of mind over matter? yes. THE ONLY SON OF GOD? Not necessarily. And never forget, he supposedly told them ALL, "You can do this, too, if you work at it."
He did not claim a monopoly on his abilities. Which indicates if he was NOT a liar NOR a lunatic, he was teaching something very different from what the Bible has evolved to say (including the included Gospels).

We also know there are Gospels that were deliberately hidden, destroyed, or left out. We KNOW that. Therefore, because the body of evidence is written words only, and only a few of them are presented, and those few were written LONG after the actual events occurred, and Paul NEVER met him, and there are known forgeries in the Bible,
ALL OF IT MUST BE SUSPECT. And that hasn't even TOUCHED mistranslation...a HUGE and ongoing problem.

Nice job, though. Good, thoughtful post. Good effort.
S/F
~wild

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


Another point to remember...besides all of the above:

Psychology and neuroscience a well as studies of memory and many, many indepth research projects have shown that MEMORY IS SELECTIVE, inconclusive as "proof", and can shift over time even in the same person. You can tell two people exactly the same thing - and one will recount it in one way, and the other recount it entirely differently. This happens ALL THE TIME - the "grapevine" game is a simple proof of how "spoken word messages" become corrupted, albeit innocently enough.

My husband and I sometimes retell our "stories" to each other, and somehow our versions often differ. Things that only he and I witnessed, and his memory of what occurred is often startingly different from mine. Yet, we both believed we were telling the truth. So much for hearsay or story-telling or memory.

Just gonna make this quick,Atheist have become a arrogant bunch of jerks on the internet all over the place over the past 10 years or so with the bible bashing.They are doing the very thing they accuse some christians of doing.Not even being honest either with their skepticism.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Just gonna make this quick,Atheist have become a arrogant bunch of jerks on the internet all over the place over the past 10 years or so with the bible bashing.They are doing the very thing they accuse some Christians of doing.Not even being honest either with their skepticism.

If you are skeptical of Christ does not mean you are an atheist. Where is this coming from ? There has been multiple "gods" " lords" before Jesus what happened to them ? We as civilization will ask the same question in regards to Jesus 1000 years from now )

Christ story or at least what we are reading today is a story that was fabricated and rewritten as someone very well pointed in a response above .

To say Christ is either Lord or Lunatic or whatever is wrong because you start with the premise that the gospels or new testament are a perfect related history ...what if is not ? then your whole concept of analyzing Christ falls into pieces

I know some do not agree with this view but I encourage even the very skeptics to read "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" Something will ring bells at the end when you are done with reading the book ) Christ was or wasn't or maybe he was but he was not who was exemplified to be in the gospels)

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

 

If Christ wasn't who He said He was... He either knew it or didn't know it. If He knew He wasn't, He would have been a hypocrite and a liar. If He didn't know He wasn't, He would be deluded and a lunatic. If He WAS who He said he was... Then Christ is our Lord and Savior.

I can't argue one way or the other for the sanity or truthfulness of Jesus until you define who Jesus claimed he was.

I'm not sure that Jesus ever claimed to be "Christ". If he really existed, he might have fancied himself as one of the messianic figures that the Jews were expecting.

I don't think that Jesus ever claimed to be the savior of humanity either. He certainly didn't claim to be GOD.

Who, in your opinion and for the sake of argument for this thread, do you think Jesus claimed to be?

Exactly who he said he was. But you have to actually read the bible to understand it, not just throw out claims, hoping they might fool enough people. 'm not going to even bother to bring out all the New testament scriptures that have Jesus asking the Apostles "who do they say that I Am" I know there are references and actual words of Christ that dispelled and mystery as to who He was. I can think of about 5-6 right off hand. But you know what..... unbelievers and anti Christian, are really not worth my time, they will not believe no matter what they see or hear, they simply relish the argument.

reply to post by Plotus


The OP's question doesn't ask if Jesus is who others said he was, it asks if Jesus was who he said he was. The New Testament is loaded with claims made by others about Jesus.

Jesus said

12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Was this a true statement?

Who walked on water, miraculously fed the masses, or rose from the dead like Jesus did, after his death? What miraculous prayers are Christians getting answered?

If Jesus is answering the prayers of the faithful, what are they praying for and why did and are their loved ones dying of disease and starvation?

I'm going with liar on this one.

How about these?

When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

and

Truly I say to you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Did that happen? Nope.

Liar or lunatic? Maybe a little of both..............

reply to post by Jobeycool


stop being a cry baby, and study up and learn how to make a proper rebuttal. All I have seen here is a under prepared Individual (the OP) trying to start an argument. half of his post seemed to be emotionally fueled and anger is just going to lead to brash and ill thought out replies like saying Paul new Jesus. The OP loses all credibility just by that one simple screw up.

The problem Isn't the atheist being cocky, the problem is that most Christians are to lazy to study up on these issues and learn the facts needed to have a legitimate and sense-able argument.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the physical connection between God and Man. Jesus is prophesied in every Book of the Bible. Jesus in every book of the bible! My opinion is that the Jews were the chosen ones because God was protecting the bloodline that Jesus was going to be born from. Even Noah was protected and his DNA was UN-tampered with meaning that he didnt have any fallen angel DNA. The DNA of Giants. The only reason for the mingling of fallen angels with the daughters of men is Satan's plan that Jesus would never be born. He literally tried to corrupt the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Jesus was born out of Noah's bloodline. God protected this line all the way down to Jesus being born. It is definitely AMAZING! Great post! I don't think I have ever seen such logic when discussing the existence of Christ. God Bless!

Proof that Jesus existed other than the Bible.

It didnt take me long to find this, seems like it takes a long time for skeptics though. Have a good one!

reply to post by 1337s0lja

The only reason for the mingling of fallen angels with the daughters of men is Satan's plan that Jesus would never be born. He literally tried to corrupt the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Jesus was born out of Noah's bloodline. God protected this line all the way down to Jesus being born.

Why then did Jesus have to be born of a virgin, if all the men weren't tainted? Who provided the sperm that was to become Jesus? Wasn't that the same thing that the nephilum did, mix thier DNA with mankind's? Was Jesus just another a hybrid nephilum?

Originally posted by 1337s0lja
Proof that Jesus existed other than the Bible.

It didnt take me long to find this, seems like it takes a long time for skeptics though. Have a good one!

All those citation have been debunked by Biblical scholars.

reply to post by windword


Read the article please. It wont take anymore than 15 minutes. This is what I believe, and just like the early Christians who were tortured because of their beliefs, I am sure that one day we as Christians will be outnumbered again and history will repeat itself. You have yourself a great day and God Bless!

reply to post by windword


Messiah would be born of the seed of a woman (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:34-35)
Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (Gen 12:3, 17:19, 28:14, Luke 3:23-34)
Messiah would be a king in the line of Judah (Gen 49:10, John 1:49)
Typified in the person of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18)
The life of Isaac - the sacrificed son (Gen 22)
The life of Joseph - the rejected brother (Gen 37)

reply to post by 1337s0lja

Messiah would be born of the seed of a woman (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:34-35)

Who isn't?!

What makes you think that the New Testament, which wasn't written until many, many years after the the supposed death of Jesus and his disciples, wasn't back engineered to retrofit the Old Testament?

As to your article, I've read it and many like it, and the scholarly rebuttals to those citations. They were either forged, being added to the texts later, by would be do gooders to promote their perceived truth, or citing other movements and men who were later misidentified as being the proof of the person of Jesus.

Outside of the bible, there is no proof of the existence of the person called Jesus in the Bible.