Why Jesus

[libby]

Prompted by tornado's thread...
From the foundation of the world mankind has believed in this-god-or-the-other.
For Christians, what is it about Jesus that makes you believe? Oh, and I'm not really thinking along the lines of Resurrection and His power over death. I'm fairly certain other gods have made that claim as well.
What is convincing/different/godly about Jesus?

 

[wxtornado]

Prompted by tornado's thread...
From the foundation of the world mankind has believed in this-god-or-the-other.
For Christians, what is it about Jesus that makes you believe? Oh, and I'm not really thinking along the lines of Resurrection and His power over death. I'm fairly certain other gods have made that claim as well.
What is convincing/different/godly about Jesus?

I'm no Christian, but here's my 2¢ anyway Could it be that he's just the "deity du jour" if you know what I'm saying? I think, in say thousands of years, that Jesus will be replaced by another god, and so on, ad infinitum....as there have been other gods before him.

I am one of those who believe there is even such scant evidence for Jesus' historical existence that in all likelihood he is more an amalgam of different characters blended into one during a legend-making process that came out of an oppressed people.

There is simply no evidence other than the bible, and even that we have no originals of, and at best it was all written decades after the alleged events. Add to that the fact that Jesus isn't particularly a unique demi-god, but is similar to dozens of other such beings in mythology (Hercules is the son of god, for instance), plus there are earlier teachings of his philosophy (Confucious taught the golden rule 500 years before the time of Jesus), and there is no reason to conclude Jesus was even a real person anymore than there is reason to believe Hercules was real.

Now if Jesus was real, that's fine, but until there is some level of evidence that he was a real being, one can conclude according to the dearth of evidence for it, or in spite of the evidence against it -- which most people do. They simply believe he existed, without any true support for the contention other than the book that claims he existed... claims he existed.

 

[Xaquin44]

I look at it two ways.

1: I don't believe in him because of complete lack of evidence.

2: Even if he does exist, I wouldn't worship him simply based on the number of attrocities he allows to be carried out in his name. The amount of people/things in our world that solely cause suffering are astounding. I will not worship any god who sits on his haunches watching his creation fall apart.

let me put it this way. Would you hire a construction company whose buildings always fall down?

 

[Queenofdenile1]

Prompted by tornado's thread...
From the foundation of the world mankind has believed in this-god-or-the-other.
For Christians, what is it about Jesus that makes you believe? Oh, and I'm not really thinking along the lines of Resurrection and His power over death. I'm fairly certain other gods have made that claim as well.
What is convincing/different/godly about Jesus?

Well, my understanding is Jesus is the son of God in human form. What makes him "Godly" I would presume is that he is from God. He is supposed to have the same "power" if you will. God is supposed to be a spirit, not a human, Jesus was human. Other than that, I have no clue. However, it gets complicated when you have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Never quite understood that part in my religious upbringing...very confusing.

 

[Radiant1]

Prompted by tornado's thread...
From the foundation of the world mankind has believed in this-god-or-the-other.
For Christians, what is it about Jesus that makes you believe? Oh, and I'm not really thinking along the lines of Resurrection and His power over death. I'm fairly certain other gods have made that claim as well.
What is convincing/different/godly about Jesus?

I'll be real honest here...I believe because I had several mystical-type experiences. I refuse to go into details, but suffice it to say I came away a believer in God and the existance of heaven, or at the very least the otherworldly. After these experiences, I studied world religions/philosophies and it was the Person of Jesus specifically that held true to the knowledge I gained from those experiences, the others were tested and found wanting. Admittedly, this can be considered a purley subjective reason for believing, but it is what it is and I'm willing to stake my life on it. Logically, I have nothing to lose by believing and perhaps everything to gain by it. :shrug:

 

[Mateo]

I'm no Christian, but here's my 2¢ anyway Could it be that he's just the "deity du jour" if you know what I'm saying? I think, in say thousands of years, that Jesus will be replaced by another god, and so on, ad infinitum....as there have been other gods before him.

I am one of those who believe there is even such scant evidence for Jesus' historical existence that in all likelihood he is more an amalgam of different characters blended into one during a legend-making process that came out of an oppressed people.

There is simply no evidence other than the bible, and even that we have no originals of, and at best it was all written decades after the alleged events. Add to that the fact that Jesus isn't particularly a unique demi-god, but is similar to dozens of other such beings in mythology (Hercules is the son of god, for instance), plus there are earlier teachings of his philosophy (Confucious taught the golden rule 500 years before the time of Jesus), and there is no reason to conclude Jesus was even a real person anymore than there is reason to believe Hercules was real.

Now if Jesus was real, that's fine, but until there is some level of evidence that he was a real being, one can conclude according to the dearth of evidence for it, or in spite of the evidence against it -- which most people do. They simply believe he existed, without any true support for the contention other than the book that claims he existed... claims he existed.

I am searching through my copy, but I think Josephus makes a mention of him. I'll let you know if I find the reference.

 

[Radiant1]

I am searching through my copy, but I think Josephus makes a mention of him. I'll let you know if I find the reference.

Josephus

 

[wxtornado]

I am searching through my copy, but I think Josephus makes a mention of him. I'll let you know if I find the reference.

A bit off topic, but be careful using Jospehus. He leaves out a very big event in his review of Herod that also is in the bible: The murder of the innocents. In and of itself this wouldn't be worth noting except: Josephus was deeply resentful of the Herod dynasty and was relentless in recoding their every move. Except the primary one that appears in the Bible.

Now, certainly decades after the alleged Jesus was allegedly crucified, there was the telling of the story. But so what? No one is denying a movement began using the classic messianic attributes in and around the later half of the 1st century.

For myself, I would say a bona fide document from, for instance, the files of Pontius Pilate, or even Rome in general, as well as corrborating documents from the Sanhedrin of the time might go a long way towards supporting the case that Jesus actually existed and was actually crucified. There are othr documents from that time. One would think, given God's supposed desire for people to be saved, that he would interact at some level to let documents like this survive.

Given the importance, and given that other, far lesser documents do survive, it's awfully suspicious that none do, and the few that are pointed to have the earmarks of later interpolation.

Less historically compelling figures and their ultimate fate are recorded, and we have some of these documents. We just don't have any for who is arguably the single most important being ever on the planet, even though such documentation would fit in precisely with the stated plan of global salvation.

 

[Toxick]

For Christians, what is it about Jesus that makes you believe? Oh, and I'm not really thinking along the lines of Resurrection and His power over death.

For me, it's all about the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the proof that Jesus was exactly who he said he was. If there was no Resurrection, then you could take everything that Jesus said, and use it to stuff fortune-cookies.

As for why I believe in the Resurrection, I believe there is enough physical evidence to support it. I've outlined what that evidence is, and why I accept it a number of times in these forums, and I'm not really in a debate-y mood to discuss the merits, or demerits of that evidence.

But that's what it is for me. Most religions are based on what their founders saw or found, none of which has left behind evidence that has withstood the test of time.

Did Mohammad really talk to Gabriel?
Did Joseph Smith really convene with Moroni?
Did Guru Nanak really go to heaven?
Did Alice Bailey really channel Djwal Khul?

Who knows? But none have proven anything to my satisfaction, whereas Christianity is based on Who Jesus was and What he did to prove it, and to me, that makes all the difference.

 

[toppick08]

For me, it's all about the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the proof that Jesus was exactly who he said he was. If there was no Resurrection, then you could take everything that Jesus said, and use it to stuff fortune-cookies.

As for why I believe in the Resurrection, I believe there is enough physical evidence to support it. I've outlined what that evidence is, and why I accept it a number of times in these forums, and I'm not really in a debate-y mood to discuss the merits, or demerits of that evidence.

But that's what it is for me. Most religions are based on what their founders saw or found, none of which has left behind evidence that has withstood the test of time.

Did Mohammad really talk to Gabriel?
Did Joseph Smith really convene with Moroni?
Did Guru Nanak really go to heaven?
Did Alice Bailey really channel Djwal Khul?

Who knows? But none have proven anything to my satisfaction, whereas Christianity is based on Who Jesus was and What he did to prove it, and to me, that makes all the difference.

 

[Xaquin44]

For me, it's all about the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the proof that Jesus was exactly who he said he was. If there was no Resurrection, then you could take everything that Jesus said, and use it to stuff fortune-cookies.

Ressurection means nothing. One, it can't be even remotly proven and two, go read the near death thread. We have one guy who says he was dead and then alive. I guess he is jesus too?

 

[Queenofdenile1]

I think it's just all about having faith and not documentation to prove that Jesus existed. We are searching for something concrete to keep our faith strong. Believing just isn't good enough and we question things to the point of researching, and understandably so, but still I wonder if we were meant to search so much. Perhaps the searching for concrete evidence so much takes away from having the faith. Truth is, do we really want to know that much? I'm not sure I do. If we do, we will have no faith. Think about it.

 

[bcp]

Ive heard that those who argue against christianity the most, are really just closet christians afraid to come out.

come on out closet christians, its ok.

 

[bcp]

I think it's just all about having faith and not documentation to prove that Jesus existed. We are searching for something concrete to keep our faith strong. Believing just isn't good enough and we question things to the point of researching, and understandably so, but still I wonder if we were meant to search so much. Perhaps the searching for concrete evidence so much takes away from having the faith. Truth is, do we really want to know that much? I'm not sure I do. If we do, we will have no faith. Think about it.

I think you hit it right on.
faith is needed.

how much faith is needed to believe that cows exist? none.
if the proof were here that showed the existence of God/Jesus, would there be the need for faith? no.

the proof will never be exposed for the living.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

I'll be real honest here...I believe because I had several mystical-type experiences. I refuse to go into details, but suffice it to say I came away a believer in God and the existance of heaven, or at the very least the otherworldly. After these experiences, I studied world religions/philosophies and it was the Person of Jesus specifically that held true to the knowledge I gained from those experiences, the others were tested and found wanting. Admittedly, this can be considered a purley subjective reason for believing, but it is what it is and I'm willing to stake my life on it. Logically, I have nothing to lose by believing and perhaps everything to gain by it. :shrug:

Why wouldn't you want to share your stories with us? It could change many a person's mind and you could be saving them from eternal damnation.

I am being dead-serious here.

 

[Toxick]

Is that a belief you have faith in? cuz you have some explaining to do

I think that was a joke, satiring the pro-gay "argument" that the most vocal anti-gay people are actually closeted homosexuals.

 

[Toxick]

Ressurection means nothing.

Perhaps to you.

One, it can't be even remotly proven

I didn't say it can be proven. I can't even prove that I'm sitting here in this chair. How do I know that I'm not someone else's dream...

What I said was there's enough evidence to convince ME that it's true. Evidence which I've detailed in here before, and don't feel compelled to detail again since it is usually dismissed out of hand.

I also said that I'm not in the mood for arguing about it. I was simply answering the original posters question, "Why Jesus?"



I already know the answer to your "Why not Jesus?"

 

[SShewbert]

For me, it's all about the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the proof that Jesus was exactly who he said he was. If there was no Resurrection, then you could take everything that Jesus said, and use it to stuff fortune-cookies.

As for why I believe in the Resurrection, I believe there is enough physical evidence to support it. I've outlined what that evidence is, and why I accept it a number of times in these forums, and I'm not really in a debate-y mood to discuss the merits, or demerits of that evidence.

But that's what it is for me. Most religions are based on what their founders saw or found, none of which has left behind evidence that has withstood the test of time.

Did Mohammad really talk to Gabriel?
Did Joseph Smith really convene with Moroni?
Did Guru Nanak really go to heaven?
Did Alice Bailey really channel Djwal Khul?

Who knows? But none have proven anything to my satisfaction, whereas Christianity is based on Who Jesus was and What he did to prove it, and to me, that makes all the difference.

Why wouldn't you want to share your stories with us? It could change many a person's mind and you could be saving them from eternal damnation.

I am being dead-serious here.

She has tried and tried to convince you. You have not believed anything else she has said. Why should she believe that those stories would change your opnion where nothing else has been able to???

 

[Radiant1]

Why wouldn't you want to share your stories with us? It could change many a person's mind and you could be saving them from eternal damnation.

I am being dead-serious here.

Simply because I cannot adequately put into words something that is ineffable; an attempt to describe it is to cheapen it.

My personal revelations won't change anyone's mind; however, my example of Christian love/charity might. I don't need to tell my "stories" for one's heart to turn.

 

[SShewbert]

Simply because I cannot adequately put into words something that is ineffable; an attempt to describe it is to cheapen it.

My personal revelations won't change anyone's mind; however, my example of Christian love/charity might. I don't need to tell my "stories" for one's heart to turn.

Agreed