If you look at the work that Jesus did, and compare it to the Healers of that time, you will discover that Jesus was a healer. He was very accomplished in his craft, and I believe he was very advanced for his time. Supernatural, no, Preacher, more than likely. But, remember, during that time it didn't take much to 'impress' the masses, as many were uneducated and ignorant. There was no explanation for the many natural phenomenons that occur. For an extremely intelligent, and gifted man like Jesus to be considered the son of God would not have been difficult to convince. He was an incredible man, a man with a vision, a way of life that was born out of love and respect for his fellow humans (not man, but humans). I believe he had an important message to teach the people, and the best way to achieve belief during that time is to claim yourself a god, or claim you were from God. His message was one that we should remember, and live by, today. Love one another. Respect one another. Be kind. But he was only a man, just a man, flesh and bone.
I agree with you. Additionally, during Jesus' life, the title of "Son of God" was a common title given to well-respected people. A few of Jesus' contemporaries also held this title, so the title was not mutually exclusive as it is today.
Dear Children, One day you will learn all there is to know about a man named Santa Clause. On that day, remember everything adults have told you about another man named Jesus Christ.
This is a hard question to ask...and the answer depends solely on one thing...do you believe in God or not? Furthermore, there is no possible way to prove that "Faith" is not simply a characteristic that humans have always has a way do deal with the fear of dying as well as a way to control the masses. Every religion (even those that are non-mono-theistic) has the same results....a way to create guidelines for an organized society. For this reason, I have no problem with people resorting to faith, however, it is the insistence of people who do believe to force there beliefs on others that bothers me about. Another trait that many religions share. And of course, that is a result of people's need to fit into groups with other people to feel comfortable. The truth is, Jesus was a man, a very well documented man.
"very well documented man" ? - what little we know of the man was written down after decades of being passed word of mouth.
Morality or guidelines, would easily exist without faith, and I'd bet certain societies would rather that faith hadn't been a controlling force. ...but yes, its true, those that proselytize are annoying.
I am just curious, how are you opposed to what I am saying then?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Jesus has been documented in official Roman texts. On your proselytizing sub point, yeah, I've actually had a couple of people wait in front of my home to talk to me about religion. It's very annoying.
Kaira, You are right of course, Josephus,Suetonius and Tacitus wrote of him, but even if they could be proven authentic they weren't there, didn't run into him on the street, heh. Josephus born 5 yrs after the date given for the crucifixion. There is no credible evidence Jesus lived. Doesn't mean he didn't I suppose.
I do have a problem with people resorting to faith because it is lauded by many despite being ignorance by definition. E.g. 'I don't know if there's an afterlife, I can't prove it'll happen, I can't test for it, science - that which has brought us every concrete advancement in human history suggests it's not there but I have faith it is'. People can of course believe anything they wish but there seems a short road between a benign, mental peccadillo and rancorous claims and pronouncements. Additionally, faith-based claims are easily fueled by indoctrination and a narrow educational scope - both of which seem positively encouraged by the faithful.
Yea, he must've been some eccentric human if he were able to gain sizeable support for the fact that he was a God.
Jesus? Which Jesus? I know a Jesus Ramirez and a Jesus Acevido and some guy Jesus worked on my car a few weeks back. Think I even know a Dr by name of Jesus. None of these fellas are supernatural. By definition, no human can be. If they're supernatural, they're not human. if they're human, they're not supernatural. So answer your own question.
No, there is nothing supernatural in the universe.
If he existed at all, he was a politician and a preacher (*went to the 12 local municipalities and gathered a few fellas to follow him...working his way towards King or something...)
We just don't understand everything of what is natural, but there is nothing in the universe that is not natural or supernatural.
And if there would be something, than we can't understand what it is.
Jesus is said (in the bible) to have withered a fig tree, turned water into wine, remotely cured a Roman Centurian, infected pigs with evil demons and performed many more miraculous, physics-bending feats. These acts fly in the face of everything we know to be true and has helped us 'stand on the shoulders of giants' to get us to where we are today. For this reason alone, he was (if anything) only an itinerant preacher.
I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that because Jesus has been purported to have performed miracles, he is only a preacher and not supernatural? Aren't miracles supernatural?
No, I'm saying that he didn't perform the miracles attributed to him and if anything, he was a completely natural human being, possibly a preacher - if he even existed at all.
Oh, in your previous post it seemed like you were saying he DID perform them. I agree with you in doubting his existence.
|
Yes, Jesus is the human form of God who came down from Heaven to absolve us of our sins and provide us a means to enter in to Heaven to be with him. However, in order to enter in to Heaven you must believe in Jesus, because Jesus tells us in the Bible that "no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)".
This is a very difficult subject to debate properly. Any other subject, let's say some medical science related topic, would require consulting more than one source for your information. If you think about it, would you take a prescription drug that only one book said was good? Or would you need many different sources (journals, studies, etc)? Now think about the airbag in your car. Would you rely on it without knowing that many, many different tests, studies and experiments were done to prove its efficacy? Or the car seat for your children? Or, or, or...
Your statement says, in more words, that jesus is god, the bible tells me so, the bible is the word of god, so it must be true. If you are going to take the bible literally, why don't you have a whole bunch of wives? Maybe sacrifice some animals, too? I think that the bible is worth more as a piece of literature than as a book for leading people in their beliefs. So, to answer the original question, he was just a preacher, fictional or otherwise.
Actually, the Bible wasn't written as one book. It was written by many different authors. Also, no one wrote anything to contradict it, in other words, to point out that the events never happened. So your analogy would be more like, would you rely on a drug that a few people wrote about, and no one said anything against it? Of course, comparing taking a drug to trusting whether someone wrote an accurate account of an event isn't really a good analogy anyway.
People have written extensive treaties about it. But if no one has written anything saying that the Fairytales of the brothers Grimm are not true, does it make them more credible?
There are contrary accounts. Specifically, in the Koran. There Jesus is a prophet of God but not the incarnation of God. But whether or not anyone has written something contradicting the Bible with regard to Jesus is irrelevent to the veracity of the Biblical account. Two thousand years from now no one will ever have written an account of my life contradicting that I am the incarnation of God. The Bible is only a valid source for people who believe it is correct. For others it isn´t a valid source and making the argument that Jesus is the incarnation of God because the Bible says so to somone who doesn´t believe the Bible is correct is a waste of time. You first must convince that person that the Bible is correct and then show that the Bible says that Jesus is the incarnation of God.
How can you use a storybook as your proof? Why that one, and not the stories by the brothers Grimm, or the texts of the latter day saints?
The Bible is not a reliable source of evidence.
Yes, and it's even more unreliable to prove something with the same source that the thing was from. E.g. I know pigs can fly because it said so in the book that described a pig flying!
Jesus's birth was predicted many years before he was born, including the fact that he was to be born of a Virgin and in Bethlehem. That's definitely SUPER! And so many people loved him that today the calender revolves around him ( and around no one else). He alone died for the love of us. That was NATURAL for some one so SUPER... Altogether Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD( the part of God that came to earth in person) and HE is our SAVIOR... Can you see that that is truly SUPERNATURAL? Today, that kind of love is still Super Good News ....NATURALLY !! Who needs Superman when we have a personal, loving SUPERNATURAL GOD, in the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ??? In HIM we have all we need for a true happily ever after !!
Actually, the bible was written to match the old prophesies, and the only proof that he was born in Bethlehem of a virgin is the current version of the bible, so not much of a proof. There are versions that were discarded that said that he was born in Jerusalem. And doesn't it seem weird to you that you would have to go to your ancestor's town to be counted? That's just a crazy story put in to match the prophesies. Everything else you say is unsubstantiated.
Yes, he is most certainly God. Are all the magic acts mentioned in the Bible necessarily true? Probably not, most of that seems to have been added much later, as Christianity separated from Judaism. But clearly the people who met him, especially in Mark, the first of the Gospels to be written, certainly those people felt he was in fact the son of God. But I'll take many of the stories in the later Gospels with a grain of salt, though they undoubtedly contain much truth not necessarily in the details. See John Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, among his many other works.
You do not have top be the son of god to perform "mericals"
A very interesting topic. One must ask 'who did Jesus claim to be?' The mere fact that He claim to be God was the one fact that that had Him crucified. So you must ask yourself these questions. 1. Jesus was evil? Was He totally evil with ulterior motive. This would be difficult to comprehend with all the good and healing He did. 2. He was deluded? Like calling himself the 'Queen of England' or 'God' when he clearly wasn't. And the last question 3. He was who he claimed to be? He claim to be God and not once did He deny it. Three hundred prophecies came true in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Statistically this is equivalent to covering the earth in two inch tiles and coloring only six of them red. And in your lifetime being only allowed to uncover six and in only covering the six red ones. No one person has changed the courses history like Jesus. He split time (BC / AD) and intervened into human history and He claimed to be God. In the words of Dr S.M Lockridge ....Do you know Him? "He's incomprehensible. He's invincible. He's irresistible. I'm coming to tell you, the heavens of heavens cannot contain Him, let alone a man explaining Him."
222 days ago | Tagged As: Yes, he is God.
Jesus is definitely God. The attached website will answer many of your questions.
Born of a Virgin is supernatural.
Faith tells us he is God. Supernatural is the wrong term. God is nature, God is everything. Jesus is God.
YOUR faith tells you he is god. Since you accept faith, you do not need a reason, which is probably why you've provided no logical argument to back your claim.
What exactly does your personal faith count for in the context of a debate? If, say, a Buddhist believes that Jesus never existed, doesn't this counter your argument? Or, if there is logical proof against the existence of Jesus or God, is your faith repudiated? Or is faith above the influence of reason?
Kaira, I'm not opposed to the idea that God has revealed himself to the entirety of Man throughout time. I only know what I have experienced in my own life. That in no way precludes the experience of God in your life via Buddhism or any other religion. I think we're all experiencing the same God, but like people standing around a mountain range and seeing the same thing differently because of perspective, we too frequently proclaim all other views wrong because it simply does not match our own. As to faith, I can only say what has been said long before: To those who believe, no words are necessary; to those who disbelieve, no words are possible.
Although I am responding to 'yes he is God', I am actually of the opinion that he never actually existed. He was clearly the son of God in the Bible but, there have allegedly been other children born to virgins with supernatural powers. http://www.thegodmovie.com/
|
