What people think about Jesus Christ

[Psalmist]

Then you just as well must deny Socrates existed, too.

It is only when belief in someone in history is considered a test of a person's character that we find these same persons irrationally denying said existence.

Any intelligent discussion about Christ with a non-believer must begin with the fact that He existed. Those that deny His historicity are unworthy of further discourse, for they have shown themselves to be so far removed from rationality that no useful communication can take place.

I am just asking . . .

Really? You, AMR would absolutely make no attempt?

Since such communication is useless, then it is to leave such a person who is debased and irrational to drowned in the slough of despond, or to wallow in their own filth so to speak, and make no attempt to reason with such a person?

Then there is no persuasive word to be put forth?

No convincing arguement that would cause such an foolish infidel to rethink their position?

So then they are useless and beyond all hope?

AMR, surely a person of your intricate and detailed Bible study, and deep Biblical knowledge, would be challenged to bring such a person to consider the historical truth of Christ's actuality, to the next step of that non-believer being convinced, convicted and converted. And have won that person to the Lord.​

That's​

- 30 -​

:scripto:. . Psalmist

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am just asking . . .

Really? You, AMR would absolutely make no attempt?​

Of course I would make every attempt to the genuine seeker, not those who have shown themselves to be already entrenched. Those that have demonstrated they possess sufficient intelligence to have formed opinions, such as a mighty_duck, who then conclude Christ did not exist (MD does not hold to this position by the way), have proved themselves unworthy. Indeed we are admonished to not even deal with these types, period.

 

[Lon]

I agree here. There are some people who are happy and satisfied with who they are and what they believe.

Their soil is fallow. It has always been God's work. We are gardeners, but God gives both quickening and increase, as Paul tells us.

Jesus speaking to His disciples, tells them if they are unwelcome to shake their sandle dust outside of town as a sign that their soil is fallow and unavailable.

"If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

"Ignorance is bliss, and denial sublime."

"Like water in a sponge, he was self-absorbed and fully drenched in his own machinations. He could take nothing more until properly squeezed."

"A quiet rebuke to a person of good sense does more than a whack on the head of a fool." Pro 17:10

"Better to meet a grizzly robbed of her cubs than a fool hellbent on folly." Pro 17:12

Pro 26:4 Don't respond to the stupidity of a fool; you'll only look foolish yourself.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool in simple terms so he doesn't get a swelled head.

We are specifically talking about the man who denies and will not even look at the evidence.

Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.

 

[Aimiel]

I'm not all the way through yet, but it seems that Greenleaf is making some pretty big suppositions:
The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject

You see? It all comes down to whether or not you already accept that the gospels are indeed Divinely inspired.

But that's the whole point of what he discovered, purely from a legal standpoint, examining the evidence presented by the four Gospel writers. He went at them with no pre-suppositions, examining the evidence, expecting to make mincemeat out of their account. He discovered that not only were The Gospels truth, but that they were convincing proof that Jesus indeed did exist and that He rose from the dead. He came to the un-escapable conclusion that The Lord is God, and Jesus is His Son. He became a believer in Christ, by careful and thorough examination of the evidence presented in The Bible.

 

[chair]

I want to go on a little bit of a tangent. Do those false messiahs raise people from the dead? Or make the lame walk, and the blind see?

Those who believe(d) in these false Messiahs will tell you that they cured the sick (yes, made the lame walk, made the blind see). I am not sure about raising the dead, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'll see if I can find an example of raising the dead.

Many Christians think that their religion is the only one that makes claims of extraordinary miracles performed by their messiah/god/prophet. Claims of this sort are very common in many religions. The claims themselves do not prove anything at all about the truth of the religion - nor does the fact that many people believe that the miracles took place.

 

[Lon]

Those who believe(d) in these false Messiahs will tell you that they cured the sick (yes, made the lame walk, made the blind see). I am not sure about raising the dead, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'll see if I can find an example of raising the dead.

Many Christians think that their religion is the only one that makes claims of extraordinary miracles performed by their messiah/god/prophet. Claims of this sort are very common in many religions. The claims themselves do not prove anything at all about the truth of the religion - nor does the fact that many people believe that the miracles took place.

I see this specific quote very often. Oddly enough, I never seem to be able to get links or other backing to support it.

Every instance must be examined on its own. I went of to heretics and they make similar claims all the time but I've found their evidence left 'wanting.'

They are dishonest and wishful thinking and to me it proves they are in it, absurd or not, with commitment rather than good information. Their information is far from convincing IMPO.

Bar Kochba and other messiah's from Jewish perspective are quite different than Christ. They are like the Judges and Joshua, war leaders, and fit the Jewish expectation of messiah.

 

[chair]

I see this specific quote very often. Oddly enough, I never seem to be able to get links or other backing to support it.

Every instance must be examined on its own. I went of to heretics and they make similar claims all the time but I've found their evidence left 'wanting.'

They are dishonest and wishful thinking and to me it proves they are in it, absurd or not, with commitment rather than good information. Their information is far from convincing IMPO.

Bar Kochba and other messiah's from Jewish perspective are quite different than Christ. They are like the Judges and Joshua, war leaders, and fit the Jewish expectation of messiah.

Here is a miracle cure from the Rebbe:
Then, as now, Benjamin traveled a good deal for his business. But one day he flew home after a trip to Thailand, and when I picked him up from the airport, I could see, even from a distance, that something was wrong. He was limping, and he looked ill - pale, drawn and obviously in pain. He insisted he was fine, but he couldn't fool me.

Something was very wrong.

By the next morning there was no question - he was in excruciating pain, and his whole body was in a state of spasm. He couldn't walk or move his legs, and even his speech was affected. We saw the doctor and Benjamin was immediately hospitalized, although no one knew what was wrong. Over the next several days he underwent test after test but nothing proved conclusive. All the while, he was getting worse and worse. At times he was partially paralyzed, but all the time he was in serious pain. He wasn't even able to get out of bed by himself. I went to the hospital several times a day to bring the kosher food we regularly ate - which seemed especially important at that point - but as I watched, he continued to deteriorate day by day. The days turned into weeks, and when even the painful bone marrow tests gave no indication of what the problem could be, I started losing home, fast.

The worst day was about a month after he'd been hospitalized. I arrived at the hospital slightly earlier than usual and came upon my usually stoic husband collapsed in tears. Seeing him so distraught removed the last of my own defenses. I was terrified. I went to the doctors, demanding they tell me what was wrong, convinced that they knew, and were hiding something from me. They insisted: "We don't know. We have no idea what it could be." And since they didn't know the cause, they had no clear indication of what treatment to begin. "We need more tests," they said, over and over again. How long would this go on? I asked. The doctors shrugged. "We don't know. Maybe in a few months things will improve."

Months more? I was stunned by the bleak prognosis - no, it was more than that. I was depressed, I was frustrated and I felt totally lost. My husband was the strong one, our protector, and the one who always knew what to do. With him so very ill, I was alone and frightened. I didn't know what to do, or where to turn. I went home from the hospital that day, exhausted and depressed, and as I walked in the door, my phone was ringing.

I was my usual weekly call from Rabbi Moshe Lazar, a Chabad rabbi in Milan who'd become a good friend. How was my husband? He wanted to know. I couldn't answer. All I could do was cry.

Rabbi Lazar held out a straw of hope I hadn't thought of before. "Why don't we ask for a bracha (a blessing) from the Rebbe?" he asked. "The Rebbe" was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, residing in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. I had never met the Rebbe, but I had heard stories. Everyone had. The Rebbe was said to be a holy, G-dly man able to do many otherworldly things. So, why not? I thought. At this point, I was desperate, and besides, it couldn't hurt.

I gave Rabbi Lazar my husband's name and his mother's name so the proper bracha could be said, and he said he would call New York that very night. I thanked him, and we hung up.

I was grateful, of course, and having at least done something, I felt a small sense of peace. But if I told you now I had confidence in a miracle of some kind, that would not be true. Maybe, maybe...

The next morning, looking for some company and moral support for a day I expected to be exhausting, I invited my father-in-law to come with me to the hospital. As we walked in, I remembered the blessing Rabbi Lazar had said he'd request, but decided against mentioning it to my father-in-law. No point in both of us being disappointed. We stepped out of the elevator on the third floor, and I looked down the hall toward the door of my husband's room.

Can you imagine our surprise when we saw my formerly-paralyzed husband walking toward us in the hall, without crutches?

Again, all I could do was cry - in fact, we all did. As well as I was able to between sobs, I told the story of Rabbi Lazar's call the night before, the request for a blessing from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and now....look!

There was, of course no medical explanation from the doctors as to what the problem had been, or what had cured it. They simply didn't know. And neither was there ever a clear explanation, in my mind, for all the whys I had accumulated. Why us? Why my husband? Why was he chosen for the affliction - and then for the miracle cure?
from: http://www.lchaimweekly.org/lchaim/5767/974.htm

Other links:
http://www.ohrtmimim.org/Torah_Default.asp?id=890
here's a video one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Hlk1vRuRM
This last video is especially interesting. The Rebbe pulled off the miracle years after his physical death - which has not dissuaded some of his followers. The Rebbe's influence is used through his writings. Watch it - it is in Hebrew with subtitles.

You are right that curing the sick is not the main point of the Jewish concept of the Messiah. Nor is it the main point of Jesus, as far as I can tell. Miracle stories are popular, nonetheless.

 

[Aimiel]

Many Christians think that their religion is the only one that makes claims of extraordinary miracles performed by their messiah / god / prophet. Claims of this sort are very common in many religions. The claims themselves do not prove anything at all about the truth of the religion - nor does the fact that many people believe that the miracles took place.

The difference with Christiantiy being that the 'stories' of Jesus are actually true.

 

[Mr Jack]

Then you just as well must deny Socrates existed, too.

Bad example. Whether Socrates actually existed or was simply a character in Plato's writings is an open question, what's more the exact words and philosophies of Socrates are only known from Plato and it is even less clear which ideas are his and which were Plato's even if he did exist.

It is only when belief in someone in history is considered a test of a person's character that we find these same persons irrationally denying said existence.

Or we just treat them like other characters such as Krisha, Buddha, King Arthur, Robin Hood and William Tell who may or may not have existed but the exact deeds assigned to them are unlikely to be true.

 

[chair]

The difference with Christiantiy being that the 'stories' of Jesus are actually true.

Uh huh.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

But that's the whole point of what he discovered, purely from a legal standpoint, examining the evidence presented by the four Gospel writers. He went at them with no pre-suppositions, examining the evidence, expecting to make mincemeat out of their account. He discovered that not only were The Gospels truth, but that they were convincing proof that Jesus indeed did exist and that He rose from the dead. He came to the un-escapable conclusion that The Lord is God, and Jesus is His Son. He became a believer in Christ, by careful and thorough examination of the evidence presented in The Bible.

A legal standpoint? A LEGAL standpoint? Seriously, what on Earth is that supposed to even mean? As far as going in as a skeptic, what was he skeptical of? He assumes from the get-go that God is real and has communicated with man through Christian and Judaic writings:
That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

And the standards for accepting their veracity is pretty pitiful, also:
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

By that standard the Koran or the Vedas can be supposed to be "true" as well. C'mon, now- this isn't evidence, it's reinforcement for your own faith. And the convincing "evidence" that sways him towards accepting the gospels? It seems to be mostly character examinations:
that Matthew was educated; an employment which must have made him acquainted with the Greek language, and extensively conversant with the public affairs and the men of business of his time; thus entitling him to our confidence,

Peter's agency in the narrative of Mark is asserted by all ancient writers, and is confirmed by the fact, that his humility is conspicuous in every part of it, where anything is or might be related of him; his weaknesses and fall being fully exposed, while things which might redound to his honor, are either omitted or but slightly mentioned; that scarcely any transaction of Jesus is related, at which Peter was not present, and that all are related with that circumstantial minuteness which belongs to the testimony of an eyewitness. We may, therefore, regard the Gospel of Mark as an original composition, written at the dictation of Peter, and consequently as another original narrative of the life, miracles, and doctrine of our Lord.

And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth,

In the second place, as their ability. The text writer before cited observes, that the ability of a witness to speak the truth, depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the fact, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts

In the third place, as to their number and the consistency of their testimony. The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing, as Dr. Paley observes, substantial truth, under circumstantial variety.

In the fourth place, as to the conformity of their testimony with experience. The title of the evangelists to full credit for veracity would be readily conceded by the objector, if the facts they relate were such as ordinarily occur in human experience,

In the fifth place, as to the coincidence of their testimony with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances. After a witness is dead, and his moral character is forgotten, we can ascertain it only by a close inspection of his narrative, comparing its details with each other, and with contemporary accounts and collateral facts

Seriously- this is supposed to convince me? :yawn:

 

[Aimiel]

Of course not, since you've already made your mind up to the contrary before you consider the evidence objectively, as he did. What he wrote after having examined it is certainly from the perspective of a believer, because that's what a careful objective examination of the evidence did: convinced him of the truth: that Jesus is The Son of God and was raised from the dead.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Of course not, since you've already made your mind up to the contrary before you consider the evidence objectively,

Oh, of course- if I wasn't convinced it's my fault not the "evidence". :doh:
Get over yourself.

as he did.

There is nothing objective about what he did. Nothing. He bends over backwards to accept things at face-value using nonsense as his support. One of his big claims is that we should accept it because people are basically honest! Give me a break. His criteria could just as easily be used to "prove" islam or buddhism. There is nothing here but generalities and legal concepts that don't apply to thousands of years old manuscripts.

What he wrote after having examined it is certainly from the perspective of a believer, because that's what a careful objective examination of the evidence did: convinced him of the truth: that Jesus is The Son of God and was raised from the dead.

You're not very good at this, ya know.

 

[freelight]

The Christ-application

The Christ-application

****

The discrepancies over whether Jesus existed as a physical entity in history or not are open to speculation. The physical being or body of Jesus is not extant, so cannot be proved as to his identity apart from human records and testimony(belief). What we do have is only records, memory, ideal knowledge and adoration of a human being vested with divine powers and Saviorship (a 'figure'), - we can invest him with whatever endowments we desire(thru formal accruments, dogma, creed or our own personal nuance) and fortify these with a 'faith' in those investments, which is what it comes down to as far as what is effected in the individual minds of the believer or faith community.

So....on this level,..Jesus is what we make him. For those of us who value and honor 'the Christ' he remains the Exemplar, Light, divine Archetype, Teacher, Guide, Mediator, Perfect Ideal/Image of the Invisible God, and as we take the spiritual path of applying the truth he taught and realize it, we too begin to unfold that Christ-Image and perfection within us.


paul​

 

[Lon]

Here is a miracle cure from the Rebbe:
Then, as now, Benjamin traveled a good deal for his business. But one day he flew home after a trip to Thailand, and when I picked him up from the airport, I could see, even from a distance, that something was wrong. He was limping, and he looked ill - pale, drawn and obviously in pain. He insisted he was fine, but he couldn't fool me.

Something was very wrong.

By the next morning there was no question - he was in excruciating pain, and his whole body was in a state of spasm. He couldn't walk or move his legs, and even his speech was affected. We saw the doctor and Benjamin was immediately hospitalized, although no one knew what was wrong. Over the next several days he underwent test after test but nothing proved conclusive. All the while, he was getting worse and worse. At times he was partially paralyzed, but all the time he was in serious pain. He wasn't even able to get out of bed by himself. I went to the hospital several times a day to bring the kosher food we regularly ate - which seemed especially important at that point - but as I watched, he continued to deteriorate day by day. The days turned into weeks, and when even the painful bone marrow tests gave no indication of what the problem could be, I started losing home, fast.

The worst day was about a month after he'd been hospitalized. I arrived at the hospital slightly earlier than usual and came upon my usually stoic husband collapsed in tears. Seeing him so distraught removed the last of my own defenses. I was terrified. I went to the doctors, demanding they tell me what was wrong, convinced that they knew, and were hiding something from me. They insisted: "We don't know. We have no idea what it could be." And since they didn't know the cause, they had no clear indication of what treatment to begin. "We need more tests," they said, over and over again. How long would this go on? I asked. The doctors shrugged. "We don't know. Maybe in a few months things will improve."

Months more? I was stunned by the bleak prognosis - no, it was more than that. I was depressed, I was frustrated and I felt totally lost. My husband was the strong one, our protector, and the one who always knew what to do. With him so very ill, I was alone and frightened. I didn't know what to do, or where to turn. I went home from the hospital that day, exhausted and depressed, and as I walked in the door, my phone was ringing.

I was my usual weekly call from Rabbi Moshe Lazar, a Chabad rabbi in Milan who'd become a good friend. How was my husband? He wanted to know. I couldn't answer. All I could do was cry.

Rabbi Lazar held out a straw of hope I hadn't thought of before. "Why don't we ask for a bracha (a blessing) from the Rebbe?" he asked. "The Rebbe" was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, residing in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. I had never met the Rebbe, but I had heard stories. Everyone had. The Rebbe was said to be a holy, G-dly man able to do many otherworldly things. So, why not? I thought. At this point, I was desperate, and besides, it couldn't hurt.

I gave Rabbi Lazar my husband's name and his mother's name so the proper bracha could be said, and he said he would call New York that very night. I thanked him, and we hung up.

I was grateful, of course, and having at least done something, I felt a small sense of peace. But if I told you now I had confidence in a miracle of some kind, that would not be true. Maybe, maybe...

The next morning, looking for some company and moral support for a day I expected to be exhausting, I invited my father-in-law to come with me to the hospital. As we walked in, I remembered the blessing Rabbi Lazar had said he'd request, but decided against mentioning it to my father-in-law. No point in both of us being disappointed. We stepped out of the elevator on the third floor, and I looked down the hall toward the door of my husband's room.

Can you imagine our surprise when we saw my formerly-paralyzed husband walking toward us in the hall, without crutches?

Again, all I could do was cry - in fact, we all did. As well as I was able to between sobs, I told the story of Rabbi Lazar's call the night before, the request for a blessing from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and now....look!

There was, of course no medical explanation from the doctors as to what the problem had been, or what had cured it. They simply didn't know. And neither was there ever a clear explanation, in my mind, for all the whys I had accumulated. Why us? Why my husband? Why was he chosen for the affliction - and then for the miracle cure?
from: http://www.lchaimweekly.org/lchaim/5767/974.htm

Other links:
http://www.ohrtmimim.org/Torah_Default.asp?id=890
here's a video one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Hlk1vRuRM
This last video is especially interesting. The Rebbe pulled off the miracle years after his physical death - which has not dissuaded some of his followers. The Rebbe's influence is used through his writings. Watch it - it is in Hebrew with subtitles.

You are right that curing the sick is not the main point of the Jewish concept of the Messiah. Nor is it the main point of Jesus, as far as I can tell. Miracle stories are popular, nonetheless.

Very nice story. I honestly have no doubts about it. You often contrast our faiths against one another. I understand the difference, but my faith is couched in Judaism. G-d loves the Jewish people. Christians understand this. As (if) you were to read any NT passage, much of it concerns Jews specifically. Jesus was Jewish, He cried and lamented over His rejecting people. Your instances are often contrasts between Christianity and Jews. I've read stories of Hindus and Buddists with said kinds of miracles, but I only know of your faith and mine that attribute these to G-d.