Do we know entirely who Jesus was?

[M30USA]

The Bible spells out for us that we have not yet received the full knowledge of who Jesus Christ is/was. Evidently, as significant as his first coming was in the records of history, his full glory has been veiled so to speak. We are told that God has both infinite mercy and infinite holiness. The first time Jesus came we were shown his mercy. This is why he was known as "the suffering servant" and was a "man of sorrows" who was "familiar with suffering" (quotes from Isaiah). He didn't even make a big show of who he was. There are even instances where it says he sort of vanished into the crowd. Any fame he has is that which was created by humans in response to what he did. There was very much a certain degree of secrecy about who Jesus is/was.

 

This will not be the case with his second coming. The very title of the Book of Revelation refers to the "revelation of Jesus Christ". When he returns, all people will witness his fully glory. Nothing will be hidden. He will not come as a trampled on, sorrowful man whose purpose was to forgive while the time was still allowing it. But he will come to rule with a "rod of iron" and to destroy all evil in the "winepress of wrath". Unlike his first coming where the whole world did not witness him, it says that "every eye shall see" him and it will be like lightning which flashes in the east and is seen in the west.

 

People say things like, "If Jesus was really God, I'd expect he would have made it a little bit more obvious." There is a truth to this statement. But for people who do not believe in him, they should be thankful for this fact. Unless you are currently washed by his blood and forgiven, trust me...you do not want him to come back. You don't want to see who he really is. The Bible says that we must seek forgiveness while it is still being offered. There will come a time where God's patience is expired. That is when we will see the fully identity of Jesus and there won't be any debates...and no more lingering questions.

[Feelin Frisky]

There is no hard evidence that Jesus existed. There is however evidence of a a group of people idealizing a figure we call Jesus who was actually name Yeshua which is the root of the name Joshua, not Jesus. In any event, no one chronicled the life of this person while he was alive--the accounts which became the early makings of the so-called "New Testament" were not written until decades after the man lived or the myth got started. Most of what is believed about Jesus is embellished ad-on material--there were no "three kings" for instance and that whole nativity thing. Jesus, if he existed at all, was first and foremost a human being. And as a human being he had to earn distinction in order to rate some kind of biography of his childhood. Yeshua did not dictate the story of the three kings and the nativity--if he lived at all he was busy trying to create and lead a movement. So, if the new testament wasn't begun for decades after Jesus alleged death and resurrection, there was no one alive chronicling Jesus's birth and childhood. It's embellished faith-lore.

 

It may sound as though I have a grievance against the new testament, Jesus or Christianity and dismiss it all as worthless nonsense. On the contrary, whether Jesus lived or not, the saga has extraordinary depth and great value and it is a good thing by and large that some of it has shaped the world. It is possible to allow yourself to be influenced by this tale, take valuable lesson from it, be spiritual and "good" without having to buy into super-nature, god, or threat of consequence for not believing. It is a story of courage in the face of great adversity to advance fellowship over dominance and submission.

[TheFinalWord]

When it comes to Jesus, we must each individually decide what to do with His claims as C.S. Lewis wrote:

 

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41.

 

 

• Christ asked this question to His disciples and it is still relevant today:
  

 

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

 

I pray that everyone will continue to ask who this man named Jesus (Yeshua as Feelin' Frisky pointed out) was. I further pray that God will open each person's heart to receive Him as Lord. God Bless.

 

Watch this masterpiece of a scene (whether you believe in Jesus or not, the choreography of the Jesus of Nazareth movie was genuis IMHO)

 

[mercy]

..and no more lingering questions.

 

No lingering questions. Not now, not ever.

 

His spirit lives within me and fills me with a joy I have never known.

[TheFinalWord]

No lingering questions. Not now, not ever.

 

His spirit lives within me and fills me with a joy I have never known.

 

Me too! I can't imagine my life without Him.

[M30USA]

There is no hard evidence that Jesus existed. There is however evidence of a a group of people idealizing a figure we call Jesus who was actually name Yeshua which is the root of the name Joshua, not Jesus. In any event, no one chronicled the life of this person while he was alive--the accounts which became the early makings of the so-called "New Testament" were not written until decades after the man lived or the myth got started. Most of what is believed about Jesus is embellished ad-on material--there were no "three kings" for instance and that whole nativity thing. Jesus, if he existed at all, was first and foremost a human being. And as a human being he had to earn distinction in order to rate some kind of biography of his childhood. Yeshua did not dictate the story of the three kings and the nativity--if he lived at all he was busy trying to create and lead a movement. So, if the new testament wasn't begun for decades after Jesus alleged death and resurrection, there was no one alive chronicling Jesus's birth and childhood. It's embellished faith-lore.

 

It may sound as though I have a grievance against the new testament, Jesus or Christianity and dismiss it all as worthless nonsense. On the contrary, whether Jesus lived or not, the saga has extraordinary depth and great value and it is a good thing by and large that some of it has shaped the world. It is possible to allow yourself to be influenced by this tale, take valuable lesson from it, be spiritual and "good" without having to buy into super-nature, god, or threat of consequence for not believing. It is a story of courage in the face of great adversity to advance fellowship over dominance and submission.

 

You can't be serious. Here is a challenge to anyone: name even ONE well-respected historian (with a PhD) who claims that the person Jesus Christ never existed. The debate about Jesus is whether or not he was God in human flesh--not whether or not hd existed.

 

My challenge stands.

[M30USA]

Challenge accepted.

 

Richard Carrier: BA in history, PhD in ancient history, Jesus myther.

 

Challenge met.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Alright, well since I don't just Google search as the be-all-end-all, I will take time to investigate this person and get back to you. Consider the case pending.

[M30USA]

From a Wikipedia article on Richard Carrier: "He also argues it is less likely but still possible the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen."

 

Apparently Richard Carrier didn't deny Jesus' existence. His doubts were about the version of him that we have today. The reason why I insist on the PhD requirement is because they are held to impeccable standards. If you have a PhD you can't just say a bunch of bull and get away with it. You will get shot down by peers and quickly lose your respect.

 

Next please.

Edited August 26, 2012 by M30USA

[M30USA]

From a Wikipedia article on Richard Carrier: "He also argues it is less likely but still possible the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen."

 

Apparently Richard Carrier didn't deny Jesus' existence. His doubts were about the version of him that we have today. The reason why I insist on the PhD requirement is because they are held to impeccable standards. If you have a PhD you can't just say a bunch of bull and get away with it. You will get shot down by peers and quickly lose your respect.

 

Next please.

 

Quickjoe,

 

Apparently you didn't read my last post. I've quoted it for you.

 

Sorry, but my challenge still stands.

Edited August 26, 2012 by M30USA

[M30USA]

From Richard Carrier's website:

 

Finally, all this is not to say that the historicity of Jesus has been refuted or that it is now incredible. Many arguments for historicity remain. They simply are not as abundant, strong, and coherent as Doherty's thesis, no matter how abundant, strong, and coherent they may be. That Jesus existed remains possible, and if Doherty could take early Christians to court for the crime of fabricating a historical Jesus, they would go free on reasonable doubt. Still, the tables have turned. I now have a more than trivial doubt that Jesus existed, to my surprise. But this stands only by a margin, allowing that I could easily be wrong. This is the impact I believe Doherty's book will have on any careful, objective reader. As an historian, I do not believe truly decisive evidence exists either way. It could. We might turn up proof that Jesus did or didn't exist, if we had better documentation of the 1st century, especially of early Christian communities and beliefs, but we don't, a fate that leaves many an historian in an inescapable position of relative ignorance. As it is, we must entertain the plausible possibility that Jesus didn't exist.

 

 

It would appear that his stance can be summarized as follows:

 

While he may have doubts about his existence (as you've pointed out above), he admits that that: a) he might be wrong, and b) there is much evidence in support of his existence.

 

He never outright says that Jesus definitely did not exist. At most, he says he has doubts and that it's probable that Jesus didn't exist. This is different from a person making a factual statement that Jesus never existed. I hope you can understand the difference.

 

People's views are never as simple as you make them out to be, Quickjoe.

[M30USA]

a) Everybody who is reasonable admits they could be wrong.

b) That there is much contrary evidence on a controversial topic is irrelevant to this discussion, and your mention of it only highlights how poor your reasoning skills are.

 

Your statement "Apparently Richard Carrier didn't deny Jesus' existence." is wrong. He does deny Jesus' existence, just not absolutely, which itself is not a reasonable position to hold about any historical claim. Most atheists don't claim that level of certainty about the non-existence of gods.

 

All you're doing is exploiting a small measure of doubt (due to Carrier's intellectual honesty) to deny that he holds an opinion by virtue of him not being 100% convinced of it.

 

You know you're flogging a dead horse here. I'm making sure everybody else sees it too.

 

I read through most of his site. It sounds as if he is aware of the vast evidence in favor of Jesus' existence. His position seems to be that this vast evidence was all somehow fabricated on the basis of Christians trying to keep together their religion. I suppose he's entitled to his opinion. But again, he has never gotten up and said there is no evidence of Jesus and we know for sure he never existed. You may say I'm taking advantage of reasonable doubt which everyone has, but I still see a distinction. I suppose one could argue his position for ANY historical figure. I could say, Sure...there is a lot of evidence that Napoleon existed, but I believe all this evidence was fabricated because the Turks wanted to convince people that blah-blah-blah...

[TaraMaiden]

I have to say, this is a truly dumb thread. Dumb in topic, and dumb in origin.

Jeesh people.... stuck records....!!

[pureinheart]

The Bible spells out for us that we have not yet received the full knowledge of who Jesus Christ is/was. Evidently, as significant as his first coming was in the records of history, his full glory has been veiled so to speak. We are told that God has both infinite mercy and infinite holiness. The first time Jesus came we were shown his mercy. This is why he was known as "the suffering servant" and was a "man of sorrows" who was "familiar with suffering" (quotes from Isaiah). He didn't even make a big show of who he was. There are even instances where it says he sort of vanished into the crowd. Any fame he has is that which was created by humans in response to what he did. There was very much a certain degree of secrecy about who Jesus is/was.

 

This will not be the case with his second coming. The very title of the Book of Revelation refers to the "revelation of Jesus Christ". When he returns, all people will witness his fully glory. Nothing will be hidden. He will not come as a trampled on, sorrowful man whose purpose was to forgive while the time was still allowing it. But he will come to rule with a "rod of iron" and to destroy all evil in the "winepress of wrath". Unlike his first coming where the whole world did not witness him, it says that "every eye shall see" him and it will be like lightning which flashes in the east and is seen in the west.

 

People say things like, "If Jesus was really God, I'd expect he would have made it a little bit more obvious." There is a truth to this statement. But for people who do not believe in him, they should be thankful for this fact. Unless you are currently washed by his blood and forgiven, trust me...you do not want him to come back. You don't want to see who he really is. The Bible says that we must seek forgiveness while it is still being offered. There will come a time where God's patience is expired. That is when we will see the fully identity of Jesus and there won't be any debates...and no more lingering questions.

 

This is very powerful...awesome dude, thanks:)

 

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord:)

[pureinheart]

Me too! I can't imagine my life without Him.

 

I your avatar:love:

[TheFinalWord]

I your avatar:love:

 

Thanks! Lots of parallels between Samson and Jesus. Maybe someday I'll do a study on here

[mercy]

Thanks! Lots of parallels between Samson and Jesus. Maybe someday I'll do a study on here

 

Don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today!

 

I look forward to reading it!