jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (202 posts)

Is jesus was born today do u think he would be taken seriously?

  1. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    Jesus was born in very volatile period ...Jews revolted twice during jesus's lifetime...Kingdom of god , god's rule etc where popular slogans and larger part of masses believed it would be end time soon and god would intervened...Many preached in those lines and one of such preacher was jesus who was made into what he is perceived today...

    But imagine jesus was born in 1980 and he would be preaching today or claiming to be healing people...how would todays people react to it?...Would he be taken seriously?

    1. Disappearinghead profile image90
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No I don't think he would be. The Church has its doctrines so firmly rooted that if Jesus was here speaking against them, he would be considered a false prophet under the influence of Satan.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @dis jesus under influence of satan?...well jews believed 2k yrs back and still believe that jesus was most influential as well as most damaging of all false prophets...

        1. Disappearinghead profile image90
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          True and the Church has very very many Christian equivalents of Pharisees.

    2. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why would jesus need to CLAIM he heals people? If we can see the miracles then there would be no doubt.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are kidding? People back then could see the miracles and they still didn't believe! Look into any Jewish history of the time and they will claim that Jesus was just one of a number of "wonder workers" running around at the time. People SAW the wonders, yet for everyone who did believe, there were as many who didn't, and many of the ones who did turned away!

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The gullible would believe as the gullible flock to see christian healers today. We all know it's staged right. Magicians can work magic. Present day magicians have gotten more cleaver recently and started using editing. The gullible are taken advantage of.
          I wasn't around 2k years ago, but at the time a small number of people were followers, the rest were not convinced. To be convinced one would have to see the miracles with ones own eyes and they would have to be big. Not making the blind see because that could be staged. Not turning water into wine because that is petty. It would have to be something big like instantaneously turning the sahara into swamp land.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're right, you weren't around 2k years ago. Back then, most people just accepted that there were "gods." There wasn't some large contingent of "educated skeptics" who didn't "fall" for Jesus or anybody else. The people who didn't believe in Jesus still believed in something and for most of them they were expecting a Messiah, Jesus just didn't fill their bill.

            And the blind who were made to see were blind people who everybody knew was blind since birth or similar circumstances. The healing of skin diseases were people everyone could see. The lame man had friends who knew he was lame and carried him to Jesus themselves. Jesus was not some snake-oil man, traveling from distant town to town with his own couterie of people staging His "miracles." He spent almost His whole life and ministry in the area where He grew up and people would know Him and His family!

            Skepticism is not a bad mindset in and of itself, but you still need to look at the facts as they are.

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How do you know?

              Yes, but facts are not necessarily found in 'good news stories' ~ ie gospels.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But it goes back to the fact that specific times and places were cited, and there were plenty of people (even with the most critical and skeptical timeline) who were  there and knew the people involved and could have said differently. Even Jesus' family thought He was nuts, but two of His brothers eventually became church leaders.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What facts as they are? Possibly you are referring to the fact that all but a few people thought Jesus was a fraud. Or are you referring to the fact that all you have is heresy evidence that Jesus even existed. Or perhaps the fact that no first hand documentation exists of Jesus.

              If the people of his time thought he was a fraud, why would you trust the writings of 4 people who never meet him?

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think you meant "hearsay", not "heresy."


                wink

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The four people DID meet Him, claimed to see Him after the resurrection, went to their deaths (well, one of them did, the other lived a long but miserable life) when all they would have had to say was, "Hail Caesar! Just a joke! Pass the matzo!" and whamo! no beheading!

                  You are right in one respect, either it was a complete forgery beginning to end (and wow, who would pay the ultimate price for a known forgery?) or there is truth in it. But you need to give ancient peoples more credit. They didn't take everything on blind faith. The fact is that at one point MOST (yes, MOST) of the people around Jesus believed He was who He said He was! But they were expecting a Messiah that would lead an armed rebellion against the Romans, not one who said "Repent of your sins and let the Romans worry about themselves!"

                  You said you read the Bible, man!

                  1. Trish_M profile image87
                    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Only according to the gospels, which relied on each other, were written well after the events, had no corroborative evidence except each other and could have been pure invention.

            3. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nonsense, there are still blind people and lame people and people with skin diseases. It was all snake-oil.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Im surprised you believe jesus existed

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand there were many such mentally disturbed men going around preaching all kinds of ridiculous things during that time. If you believe I think the Jesus as represented in Scriptures existed, not a chance.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh come on now.can't you take just a little bit of teasing?

            4. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How do you know where jesus spent most of his life and ministry? Theres a huge gap between his twelfth and 30th years in your bible

              1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                He was at boarding school, then Nazareth Community Collge, then University of Jerusalem, and then matriculating for his master's and Ph.D. in social work and Christian studies.
                smile

                1. pisean282311 profile image57
                  pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                2. 0
                  writeronlineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lmao!

                3. pisean282311 profile image57
                  pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  @mighty mom ...it is time for gospel of mighty mom...m sure it would be far more interesting than other four gospel...

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe Jesus was actually Jewish (as the Bible claimed) or if He was actually some kind of proto-New Agey guy.

                I don't actually know what you're getting at, but the fact is that as a good Jewish boy (who everyone in His hometown knew and knew His family) the likelihood that He would have gone around from town to town staging miracles is extremely small. If He had, all other things being equal, He would have gathered a large crowd around Him and probably died in obscurity like many of the other wonder workers of that time.

                Did you know that, according to the OT, a priest could not be ordained until he was 30 (Numbers 4:3, 4:47)? Jesus, in order to fulfill His role as priest, could not violate that law, so His ministry didn't start until He was 30. That is why, when He was confronted by John before the baptism, His response was that it must be done to "fulfill all righteousness."

                1. Trish_M profile image87
                  Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's interesting. I didn't know that.

                2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And did you know, according to the OT, you are permitted to sell your daughter into slavery?  How much did you get for yours?  tongue

                  One would expect the messiah's life to be covered to the fullest by writers during his time, not skip over 20 years of his life with no mention of his whereabouts. 

                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And did you know...did you know...did you know...

                    I know that you're not the first person to throw that at me.

                    What we call "slavery" was more like indentured servitude. It wasn't slavery for life. Nor was it chattel slavery like in antebellum America. And during the Year of Jubilee you had to free the slaves.

                    As opposed to surrounding cultures where slavery was exactly that, with no redemption and no rights.

                3. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not trying to get at anything. Just wondering how you could possibly know anything about Jesus' life in the missing years.

                  You are just making things up. Like Christians like to do.

                  I dont believe he even existed. The whole bible is a metaphor.

                  1. EinderDarkwolf profile image61
                    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What Christians tend to leave out, is that under Jewish law, you couldn't have a beard unless you were married (Jesus is described as having a beard), and you couldn't teach unless you were married. These things of course, have no bearing on anything according to them.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course if you don't believe He existed, then anything I say would be pointless.

                    But the fact is that if you actually read the Bible and know anything about Jewish culture at the time, then what I said about the subject is indeed the most likely route things took.

    3. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus had to be born when He was in order to fulfill the prophecies, including being hung on a tree. Crucifixion is not practiced today.

      Howver, to answer your philospohical question: He would certainly gather a large following and come into conflict with the established church of the day (which would most certainly not be Christian, since He wouldn't have come yet.) His teachings, which regularly challenged the religious institutions, would have guaranteed His trouble.

    4. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are folks like that today and they are taken seriously, but only by the gullible and ignorant.

      We now know today there is no such thing as miracles such as healing people and the charlatans and frauds who practice such voodoo are easily exposed as such.

    5. Trish_M profile image87
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      First of all, there is no proof that Jesus actually existed at all. It is still a matter of some debate.

      Secondly, I am guessing that, if Jesus lived today, a few people would take him seriously, but not many, and he would probably be considered a bit odd.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually there's as much proof for the life of Jesus as there is for the life of Julius Caesar.

        More, actually.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOLOLOL that you need to lie for your religion - all this does is convince us it is utter garbage.

          But - go ahead and list 50 contemporary historical references to this Jesus person.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You first, list 50 contemporary references that say He never existed.

            I dare you.

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is absolutely no proof at all that Jesus ever existed.

              There is interpretation and there is some unreliable evidence ~ that's all.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hmm.

                There's Pliny, who wrote about His influence.

                There's the Talmud, that wrote that He wasn't who He said He was.

                There were the Gospels, and before you jump on that let me point out that they were all written within the lifetimes of people who would have been in the places mentioned at the times mentioned, and they were widely known. Yet not one single contemporary of the writers ever said, "No, He didn't exist. No carpenter named (Jesus, Yeshua, what have you) was there." There were no, "I was there," or even "My cousin was there, and it never happened." Many disputed who He was, no one disputed whether He existed. That's a purely modern development.

            2. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why would there be contemporary references that say he never existed?

              How silly.

              So - you know of no references to this person then? And this is proof he existed? More proof than Julius Caesar existing? Got me confused. I guess I am confused because I thought you had some actual evidence. When - you do not.

              Which - as you claim there is more evidence of this person than there is of Julius Caesar - this makes you a liar.

              And as you claim to be  Christian - this simply reinforces my opinion of your religion.

              1. Trish_M profile image87
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, that would kind of defeat the object smile


                He has cited Pliny, the Talmud and the Gospels.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I asked for contemporary historical references. I have looked and never found any. So I rather take offense when some one tells me there is plenty of evidence.

                  I take further offense when my intelligence is insulted further by insisting I provide historical references that say he did not exist.

                  This is why their religion causes so many fights.

                  1. Trish_M profile image87
                    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm guessing that this is because none have ever been found ~ probably because none exist? smile

                    I wonder if anyone will come up with anything? I'd be genuinely amazed smile

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yet you think nothing of insulting my intelligence. Interesting.

                    Who, among the contemporaries, ever contradicted the Gospels? I mean, what account has ever surfaced from someone who was there (and many people were there) at Galilee, or the Jordan, or Jerusalem, who said, "No, it didn't happen like that. I was there." Or, "My cousin was there," or "my uncle." People at that time were not stupid, they didn't just automatically go around willy-nilly believing anything they were told. It certainly makes us modern men feel better to think so, but it's not.

                    Pliny didn't deal with just one guy and conclude there was a movement. He had a belly-full of them and thought they were nuts. But movements don't appear out of thin air. And they don't continue for 2000 years if there's nothing there.

                    Twleve men claimed to see him, eleven of them died gruesomely but could have avoided it by simply saying, "No, you're right, I was making it up." If Peter and Paul had simply gone back to being Jews, they would have been given a pass by the Romans.

                    You may be the exception, but my experience with hard-line atheists is that they demand what they would never accept if they received it. And they may be fully sincere when they say, "But I would accept it if you just give me exactly what I asked for!" And they get so hung up on one sign that they miss a thousand smaller signals.

                    Correct me if I'm wrong.

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Mark, there's little I could do that would not reinforce your opinion of my religion. If I were to cite a literal 50 contemporary examples of His existence, you would claim they were made up, or about somebody else, or interpreted incorrectly.

                Just like a survey of history shows that if religion were removed from the scene, people would still fight.

                Do you have anything to your hostility beyond a few broad accusations? What do you cite for your antipathy?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I simply do not like liars.

                  You claimed there was more evidence of the existence of Jesus than there is of the existence of Julius Caesar.

                  I asked you to provide some.

                  There are no contemporary references to this person - so you are a liar.

                  The very fact that you say "If I were to cite a literal 50 contemporary examples of His existence, you would claim they were made up, or about somebody else, or interpreted incorrectly." - as though you could cite 50 contemporary references that were not made up reinforces the fact that you are dishonest.

                  Yes - if you cited 50 - they would be lies. That is fact - not me refusing to accept the truth of your statements.

                  Why not just be honest and admit that there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus outside the bible?

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you, Mark. I knew you would prove my point for me. I just didn't expect it so quickly!

                    Peace.

        2. Trish_M profile image87
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, there isn't smile

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Really?

            Pliny?

            The Talmud?

            Maybe there's not literally "more," but there's certainly not "none."

            There's proof He existed.

            1. Trish_M profile image87
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's not proof. That's the unreliable evidence that I mentioned.

              Proof needs to be contemporary and corroborated and clear.

              Proof is not something written many years after the event, or possibly forged, or that can be misconstrued.

              I have books about Robin Hood. Are they proof that he existed?

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                By that very level of evidence, I now believe you to be a Romanian teenager sitting at your computer having fun with stupid Americans.

                Try subjecting the evidence to the rules thereof, not the biases of the Jesus Seminar.

                1. Trish_M profile image87
                  Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Do I have to be insulted?

                  I am a 50+ Englishwoman, with a degree in history from a very good university. I have read up on this and related issues for decades. I do not need to look at the 'Jesus Seminar'.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I do not mean to insult you. I was trying to make a point and sometimes I get carried away. I apologize.

                    But the accusation of forgery against the Gospels does not stand up to actual scrutiny. I'm a 45+ American (if age and nationality really mean that much) and have studied this for decades. Both pro and con.

                    So to say that "there is absolutely no proof that Jesus ever existed" is interpretation at best. And not one that stands up well if people are really objective.

                    His divinity is more open to debate. If He were alive today and doing the things He did then, He would gather a large crowd of supporters and He would have a large crowd of detractors.

                    Just like He did back then.

    6. John Sarkis profile image77
      John Sarkisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's important to understand how God put Jesus in the scene over 2000 years ago.  As a believer, I speak subjectively on the matter, so take it as you will..., nevertheless, this is on the same lines as "why does God let bad things happen to good people?"  As Christians, we're told to have faith, nothing more/less.  Like everyone else - whomever  - I have questions and don't often understand God's ways....

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    If he was claiming to heal people, of course not. If he was healing people, some would take him seriously. About like it was back then.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @emile recently a god man is India is in news for healing many...still majority are not taking him seriously....docs call such healing as psychological healing methods which do work in many cases....2k yrs back people believed in that part of earth that disease is due to sin and such healers like jesus where common...yes in developed countries of those era , where medical science was evolving , healing was done by professionals and not by spiritual healers...

  3. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    No, jesus would be in a mental institution, drooling and shot full of haloperidol

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @janesix mental institute?...now thats harsh ...kindly elaborate..

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thinking you are a deity is a sure sign of psychosis. Believe me,i know.

        1. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @janesix but who knows what jesus actually thought...what we know is he died and after his death some unknown mark wrote first gosphel....jesus was not considered diety till 3rd century...first generation chrisitians where trying to convince jews that jesus is messiah not diety...

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe yet he was walking around claiming to be the son of god.

            Grandiosity
            Delusions

            Two classic signs of acute psychosis

            1. pisean282311 profile image57
              pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              u have a point...guess that is what even jesus family members believed...

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not if you can back it up. And He did!

        2. Disappearinghead profile image90
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Believe me I know". Have you previously claimed to be a deity? hmm

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good one. wink

          2. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes. And i was crazy.

  4. Lawrence Da-vid profile image60
    Lawrence Da-vidposted 4 years ago

    If, in todays society, JESUS were to return to earth, I fear that absolute proof would be necessary.  There have been too many individuals claiming to be JESUS.  There will be those that would not believe in HIS return regardless of proof....they would think charlatan, heretic.  Still others, would find it difficult, even with earth shaking proof.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Many have claimed to be the savior of the second coming, meaning their is alot of fake Jesus clones running around.  If Jesus ran for American election to be president , he would not get voted in, than what?

      On the other hand,

      Jesus died at age 33, that would coincide with the end of the earth in 2013 , if he was reborn in 1980, two thing could happen

      1. The earth opens up to the gates of hell, and demon start ripping us apart, at that moment I will repent with all my heart

      2. Jews go to heaven and the rest go to hell, just remember one thing, God loves you.

      3. The whole religious thing is a scam to control the masses by the few rich

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Or God really does love you and the rich figure out how to scam people using it. But there are those who pay attention to God and not man.

  5. kess profile image60
    kessposted 4 years ago

    Did you take me seriously when I said I am the Christ?
    In the same way you would treat Jesus.

    The one who strive after proof, will miss the christ because his striving is the proof of his unbelief, faithlessness.

    The Christ can do miracles by himself unto himself, and these are not "miracles" to him but merely the way of Life.

    When doing miracles for others, it requires the Faith of the ones needing the miracle, and if they first require proof, it proves that they do not have the necessary Faith which would allow that thing to happen, whether it be healing raising the dead, or multiplying food.

    You see the only proof of Christ a man need is himself, and that is his Faith. Not the blind faith of religion that florished upon reputations of men.
    These types were with Jesus saw the miracles and were the recipient of the same, but they never knew who he was and followed for the fleshly benefits of doing so.


    But the Faith that comes from Kowledge....The knowing of the exact nature of ones self, this world and God.

    This Man will not merely recognise the Christ in Jesus but also Himself....the he beging to see the Unity of God the world and himself.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The rich have tooled Religion, for example: the predominate christian North America per ca-pita leave the largest foot print on the face of the earth and spend 20 time more money on the Oil Wars than on research of all the energy we need, that is right underneath our feet.

      Then after the average person puts in 40 years working service to  mankind , then those 90% People wind up dead or dead broke. If that is the Christian way of living with Nature, then I'll keep my circle of nice guys relationship while religion can keep their rakes of fight clubs,and  rule number one: don't talk about the fight club

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I never said it was the Christian way.

        Many people think it is but the Bible disagrees, as do I.

        Many of those people aren't going to Heaven, no matter what they think.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh Chris. Are you determining who gets into heaven now?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The line up for hell keeps getting longer as Religious groups breeders over populate the earth. There has to be another planet with greater intelligence than earth or God is not kind and hell is great.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If we treat our animals, pets or farm, with the same "kindness" God treats His creations we will go to jail for it.  The claim is made for forgiveness, but we are not allowed to witness forgiven people going to heaven; only the cruelty of starvation and sickness permitted among our fellow "creations".

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I would hope you would know me a bit better than that by now.

            The Bible makes clear that many, even most, people who think they have a clear shot are in for a rude awakening. It also makes it clear that we humans are not to judge who will make it in or not. That means that even though we don't know which individuals are getting in, we know that many individuals are not.

            You may agree or disagree, but the Bible is my source and my standard. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and if we don't learn it now (in the "predominate christian North America") we will learn it after we die.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, do you believe YOU are getting into heaven?  Are you ready to be disappointed if you don't?  And what about those you've "shown the light" to?  If they don't make it either will you take any blame for their eternity in hell?  "Gee, my bad, friends, but I meant well!  You guys aren't angry just because I led you astray are you?"      lol


                                                                   http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi, Randy! Nice to see you again!

                Would hope that you would know me better than that by now. I know you don't read all my stuff, but just from our own conversations I would like to think I was a little more honest with you than for you to think I'm smugly waiting for Heaven to open up for me!

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Only when it suits your agenda. Surely, when others bring forth that which you don't accept as standard, your claim to source falls flat.

      2. kess profile image60
        kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You did know I am no christian right?

  6. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    I met Jesus once - he visited the Salvation Army church my wife's grandmother was pastor of, begging food.  White sheet as a robe, but no beard.  Unfortunately, we didn't believe him much.  That would be a common reaction, I'm afraid.

    On the other hand, millions have believed in Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Pat Robertson and the Pope as men of God, preaching His word, to the point that they have given (and still give today) their possessions and sometimes their very lives.

    So yes, there will always be the gullible who will believe anything.  There is always some preacher doing miracles, healing the blind and sick, and the believers that swallow that sort of stuff.  People want to believe and will do so whatever evidence to the contrary is shown.  Were David Blain to suddenly begin preaching a gospel I'm sure he would have followers, too - his "magic" is quite impressive and he's quite a showman.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      good point

  7. RooBee profile image83
    RooBeeposted 4 years ago

    Nope.

  8. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

    There is no proven historical record of Jr. ever having existed.  This despite the known historical records from the time being almost tainted by religious leaders attempting to verify his being.  They were caught at it, fortunately for those of us who prefer truth over the words of ignorant religious zealots.


                                     http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, that's the first time I've heard that, at least phrased that way. I'm going to need some verification on that!

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The works of Josephus, as well as other contemporary historians, were edited to try and include Jesus in them as the mere lack of mention concerning him was an embarrassment to his followers much later on.  You do know, of course, there was no record of his existence for at least 30 years after his supposed death, right?

        Three decades is a long time for such short lived folks, with almost anything capable of being said also being almost unprovable 30 years later.  Very convenient to those wishing to create myths about religious figures. 

        Besides, unless there was someone capable of using shorthand to write down the words of Jesus as he spoke them, no one really knows what he supposedly said, or even if he ever existed at all.  Most of his quotes were made up literally hundreds of years later.  Most believers have no idea about this and think Jesus wrote the bible himself.  lol

                                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, nice try but...

          The Josephus writing (and here we are talking about one sentence, not an entire body of work!) is well understood by conservative Christians that the specific Jesus reference was probably not made by Josephus because it doesn't fit in with the rest of his writing or general outlook.

          You assume that not just the average lifespan was 40 years but that almost everybody was dead by 40. There are just too many cases of people who lived to 60, 70 or 80 for that to be true. In fact, for forty to be the average that means that there would have to be as many people who lived longer as people who didn't live that long! Yes, life was dangerous and many people died early, but not that many!

          I've never met a single believer who thinks that Jesus wrote the Bible. Okay, a couple of five year olds, but nobody over that age. Good joke! Bad stab at truth.

          Shorthand was developed by a Roman slave sometime in the First Century BC, although Greek systems were known before that. But most cultures put a high premium on the ability of people to remember things for long periods of time. So the probability that people would remember things He said or did for twenty or thirty years, especially if you saw things like healing of lepers and giving sight to the blind, which would not only be memorable in and of themselves but also carry great cultural and religious significance to you, would be pretty high.

          First Century Jews were soooo not 21st Century Americans!

          big_smile

  9. Eric Newland profile image59
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    I would say no to the initial question because people don't pay much attention to baby babbling. Maybe after he got a little older.

  10. Atheist Anthony profile image60
    Atheist Anthonyposted 4 years ago

    It can't be said considering the world as we know it would be entirely different. We'd probably be farther as a race by this time if he wasn't born until now

  11. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    @mark

    most christians dont know that historic jesus doesnot have contemporary source...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently. Why would they not investigate this for themselves and why would they claim that there is without verifying it?

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @mark unfortunately most believe bible=history...

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mark

          I would just use the word false statement instead of liar, if they are really wrong and they don't care, then I call it BS

          Liar is a strong word, Chris dose not lie all the time, only sometimes like on this thread when too many people disagree with him and in desperation he makes false statements.

  12. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    @mark

    its surprising that most christian dont know that authors of gospel never met jesus in person...Mark's gospel is considered to be oldest among gospel and no one even know who this mark was...some believe he was disciple of peter and wrote what peter told him about jesus...Modern scholars believe mark was christian living in syria...Bible was standardized much later...It was done around 300 yrs after death of jesus...Super hero christ we have in bible is invention of authors of bible...and word of god as claimed by christians is collections of words chosen by early church...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I know. It is almost as though they want to believe so bad, they dare not look at the provenance.

      This one has been arguing that there is lots of evidence for Jesus - despite the fact that there is none.

      Now he is professing surprise that people take things on face value and expressing how unreasonable it is that the gospels were written by people who had never met Jesus.

      It is pretty certain that the gospel writers never met Jesus. This is widely accepted in theological and historical circles.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        No it isn't.

        Liars for Satan. (TM)

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well - I know you are very, very brave hidden behind a fake user name and image, but if you are going to call me a liar - at least back it up with something.

          Who is this Stan person?

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Daniel Buchanan Mr Knowles.. And that's me. If I was to use a fake image, it would be someone pretty, not ugly like myself. [I'm sure you'll disgagree] wink

            Dyslexia kicking in or?

            Back it up?

            Your claim is spread by rumor and myth, like you claim the Bible to be ya know?

            Google your second to last sentence and see how many nuerons have asked that question after being parroted some heresay like your post... And then the 'historical circle' answers you claim.

            Widely accepted? Yeah, I'll give you that.

            By intelligent people who 'actually' did the homework.. Pleaseee  lol

            Matthew and John are two followers [disciples]. James and Jude are His brothers. Peter was a disciple as well.

            Mark was taught by Peter, and Luke was a physician who was 'reporting' on it witness testimony style.

            Stan.. Ohhh, I get it. You have code names now..

            lol

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Crikey. You think the Gospels were actually written by the disciples? OK then.

              Not sure what to say to that other than "Crikey!" It seems your ignorance knows very little boundaries. lol

              Very, very brave you are. Wow! I am really impressed at a warrior for Christ such as yourself taking the time out of a busy schedule to be so condescending to me. Makes me want to rush out and become a Warrior for Christ myself. *Insert Sarcasm Smiley here*

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol

                It's widely accepted in the scholarly historical society.

                wink

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You just made that up. Oh wait - I thought lying was a sin and your Invisible Super Daddy burned you for that. N'est pa?

                  1. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @mark we wont see any religion exist without myths,fables and lies ...

                  2. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I didn't..

                    Boy you hate the truth..

                    You claim none met Him.

                    I state two, the truth. And now I made all that up?

                    LOL

                    You're killing me ol' fella.

                    You can keep that, Aramaic is more my style.

                    And no, it isn't true.

                    That wasn't lying I got burned for..

                    It was being harsh.

                    Funny how things change and memory slips int it?

                    smile

                2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hmmm!  North Carolina or some other such place?  Perhaps baptist or even Methodist.  Clearly indoctrinated at an early age.  Not much structured education and apprently not interested in understanding science or factual history.  Excellent fundamentalist material! tongue

                                                         http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                  1. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @randy hmmm...observation?

                3. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It really is not at all, there is much debate about who wrote the gospels and when, John is estimated to have written about 100 AD for example, many parts of the gospels indicate that A) the writers were not the apostles and B) ti had been some time since the writing ie.

                  In reality, none of the evangelists identifies himself as a character in the gospel story. As one glaring example of this detachment, it is claimed that Matthew was recording events he himself had witnessed, but the gospel attributed to him begins before he had been called by Jesus and speaks of Matthew in the third person….

                  Furthermore, there are places in the New Testament that imply the books were written long after the purported events, such as when the text reads, "In the days of John the Baptist," which indicates that the writer is set far ahead in time and is looking back. As another example, regarding Jesus's body being stolen, Matthew's gospel claims that "this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." The phrase "to this day" indicates that the writer is talking about a significant length of time, not shortly after the resurrection as some have attempted to place the composition and emergence of this gospel. In fact, we do not have any mention in the historical record of the story of Christ's body being stolen having been spread among the Jews until the second century. It is possible that this particular verse was not added until that time, which means that it is not original to the gospel and that Matthew certainly is not its author. Also, Luke's gospel discusses an apparent myriad of preceding gospels written "by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…"

                  I am not saying either way just that there is no consensus at all that the gospels were written by the apostles or about when they were written.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @josak u r picking and choosing...BIBLE was written by eye witnesses , who where pretty much part of jesus's inner circle..PERIOD...we dont need proof since bible itself is proof...Bible is word of god , because Bible says so...

                4. Trish_M profile image87
                  Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have a history degree and I have never heard anything such as this.
                  Which scholarly historical society widely accepts that the gospels were written by the disciples???

                  1. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @trish bible society

                  2. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Show me any ancient text's proof of author identity.

                    The evidence shows no discrepancies.

                    There are other documents known to be falsified. The ones kept in the Bible are not those.

                    That is the whole point. You can't prove anything by scientific evidence regarding the documents to non-debatable standards.

                    People that have no bias state genuinely that there is no reason to doubt the Bible's textual basis. Anyone can be silly in their expectations and scrutiny of the text. Their intense assessment applied to every text [collections of copies that is] would render every one of them useless.

                    This, by those who have no bias, is well known.

                    Doubt can be applied to anything without any effort.

  13. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Yes, there are lots of problems everywhere around the world like poverty and wars. Times are tough and people tend to find consolations - messianic guidance during these times.

  14. mischeviousme profile image60
    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

    What do you think would happen if you said you were Jesus, wielding a sword and spouting crazy gibberish?

    You'd probably be put away or worse, killed.

    What happened to Koresh and others like him?

    Think about how that looks this day and age, how is any of it rational?

  15. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    I believe if Jesus was born today, he would be shocked at the idea that Christians refer to him to the son of God. He would be in disbelief to hear all the supposed quotes he was supposed to say in the Bible (i.e. When Gen Sherman, years after the Civil War, was asked about his quote about "War is Hell", he said he doesn’t remember saying anything like that. Nobody but the media, not the owners or builders, claimed the Titanic was unsinkable. The unsinkable notion really took off after it sank). Born to a virgin?! He’s fall over laughing. Three wise guys gave him gifts? “When did this happen?” He’d ask. A modern Jesus would quickly find out that there's better ways to treat people than faith healing. He wouldn't recognize the images of himself displayed in churches and other places since he wouldn't resemble any of them (the images we know of Jesus are severely Europeanized - Jesus was Middle Eastern). I think Christians would be very disappointed.

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're right that Jesus as a Semitic Jew (and one who was not supposed to be especially handsome) wouldn't look a thing like most of the pictures of Him.

      As for the rest of it, He would definitely say yes, because they had to happen to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As far as handsome goes, (personally, just sayin) I can't believe for a second the Son of God was anything but perfect.. which is the equivalent of attractive.

        Just my take.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Isaiah 53:2, which I believe is quoted in the NT, makes clear that Jesus didn't fit anyone's ideal of physical perfection, whether the Jews of 1st Century AD or the Americans of 21st Century AD.

          What drew people to Him was His spirit, not his dashing or rugged good looks.

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well I wouldn't say His looks brought people even if I knew He was attractive.

            And I don't see any of this as discussion to make debate.. This is solely  my opinion.

            Colossians 2:9

            King James Version (KJV)

            9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            I just don't see how fully God in bodily form can be ugly.. Save that beauty is in the eye of the beholder perhaps..  [not that every beholder is correct pertaining to God]

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Could it be a visage of Zeus? He often took the form of a twisted beggar or that of an old man.

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I see your point but in a way, that's falling into the very trap that we get accused of so often. If beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder then that picture that was in so many homes when I was growing up of the "European Jesus" becomes a standard of beauty. Even that long hair, which it's extremely unlikely the real Jesus would have had but no Christian (or other) movie or painting dares to contradict because it's so ingrained in our consciousness, that's from an idea of physical beauty and male virility. It's doubtful that He is ugly, but it is more than likely that physically, He would have been considered run-of-the-mill, even somewhat plain. And that would be important because a handsome or even beautiful leader (like David, for instance) would have had some gushy stuff written about how handsome he was, which would inevitably detract from the real point.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree about the hair, and I actually believe His hair wasn't long like the images you're talking about. [I won't get into why here, it would get rather lengthy.]

                I simply took Isaiah to be saying He won't be drawing the masses through His outward beauty or glory, like you mentioned.

                I can agree about stuff off-point being wrote in that case too.

  16. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Chris Neal wrote:
      " ... Even that long hair, which it's extremely unlikely the real Jesus would have had but no Christian".

      ME
    Was he nor called a Nazarine?  In keeping in the faith of a Nazarine wh would not have cut his hair or drand strong drink.

      I think he had long hair. Though he wasn't any thing special to look at (comely)

 
working