Is Jesus who He said He is?

[Joshua-777]

You believe Jesus was who he said he was, but do not believe Jesus was who the Bible said he was...can you please help me understand you mean by this?

I do not believe today's Bible has accurately recorded the words of Jesus. I believe Jesus was a great man, but I do not believe this book people worship has accurately represented him.

Let me justify these suspicions for you. As I mentioned earlier, the Bible is a historical document that has been transcribed and translated countless times. Even if its translators were completely honest people, it would still be reasonable to assume errors have occurred. Then, once you introduce various political, economic, sexual, ethnic motives, the Bible and its accounts of Jesus will be even further derailed. There is no doubt in my mind that this has occurred.

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, lived hundreds of years after Jesus, and he has suffered from the same historical fate. The Buddha did not profess to be a god--quite the opposite, in fact--and yet millions of Buddhists have since deified him. This is largely a result of their respect for him, but it has greatly undermined his earthly message. And worse factors have been at work rewriting the Buddha's history. He preached respect for all life and yet uncharacteristic messages of misogyny suddenly rear their head in some of his scriptures. We know the Buddha wouldn't have said these things--they go against everything else he said--and yet they are there, probably written in centuries ago by some frustrated scribe. So do we question these words and risk damaging the integrity of all Buddhist scripture, or do we just take it all at face value? It's a slippery slope.

Christ died centuries before the Buddha, and his words have been transcribed many more times, so I believe he has been subject to the same historical estrangement.

How did His followers, who loved Him so much, defy Him and destroy His message? And who worships an image?

See my earlier comments about his (and the Buddha's) deification.

Also, you at least acknowledge Jesus with respect and I am grateful for that much at least. Thank you.

if you don;t, than you don't know what He truly said, and can only speculate about who He truly was.

Of course, I am just speculating.

Hey do a study, it's amazing how accurate it really is, the only explination, God protects his word. Now based on translations look of history of biblical translations, And budda and Jesus, hmm budda I do feel was too into himself,lol, But you can't really use budda too much in comparison, Budda was a man, who tought searching your own spirit through meditation, Jesus Said He is God, Now, as far as wording, it's pretty rad they found another book of the bible recently, Timothy wrote a lot of stuff Jesus said. Look into that, As far as him being a good teacher, theres only 2 points

1 he was who he said he was, :God

2 he was a nutcase,

[Guest shiloh357]

I do not believe today's Bible has accurately recorded the words of Jesus. I believe Jesus was a great man, but I do not believe this book people worship has accurately represented him.

What is your manuscript evidence?? I mean to make such a statement, you must have intimate knowledge of the some 25,000 Greek manuscripts that exist on just the New Testament alone.

Secondly, we do not worship the Bible. We read it, and we believe it, but we do not worship it.

Let me justify these suspicions for you. As I mentioned earlier, the Bible is a historical document that has been transcribed and translated countless times. Even if its translators were completely honest people, it would still be reasonable to assume errors have occurred. Then, once you introduce various political, economic, sexual, ethnic motives, the Bible and its accounts of Jesus will be even further derailed. There is no doubt in my mind that this has occurred.

I can't wait to see all of the good manuscript evidence you are able to provide from your many decades of research.

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, lived hundreds of years after Jesus, and he has suffered from the same historical fate. The Buddha did not profess to be a god--quite the opposite, in fact--and yet millions of Buddhists have since deified him. This is largely a result of their respect for him, but it has greatly undermined his earthly message. And worse factors have been at work rewriting the Buddha's history. He preached respect for all life and yet uncharacteristic messages of misogyny suddenly rear their head in some of his scriptures. We know the Buddha wouldn't have said these things--they go against everything else he said--and yet they are there, probably written in centuries ago by some frustrated scribe. So do we question these words and risk damaging the integrity of all Buddhist scripture, or do we just take it all at face value? It's a slippery slope.

Christ died centuries before the Buddha, and his words have been transcribed many more times, so I believe he has been subject to the same historical estrangement.

Your comparison is an invalid one. Jesus is not merely found in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament as well. Buddha did not claim to be God but Jesus did, and He acted like God. Jesus did not teach "respect for all life" and the various and sundry messages people today attribute to them. Jesus was a person of great controversy. Jesus did not teach that you're OK the way you are. Jesus taught that men are sinners, and that unless a man is born again, He cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus taught that He and He alone is only way to God. Jesus did not "respect" other points of view. Jesus did not leave room for anyone else's "belief system" when He said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me." To assert that perhaps Jesus did not say that, lacks a seriuous amount of intellectual credibility.

[Ovedya]

If Jesus were alive today He would be labeled by unbelievers as an intolerant religious bigot.

[undone]

If Jesus were alive today He would be labeled by unbelievers as an intolerant religious bigot.

Not to pick at you, iiit's a great point....but He is alive.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 14 2006, 06:36 PM)

What is your manuscript evidence?? I mean to make such a statement, you must have intimate knowledge of the some 25,000 Greek manuscripts that exist on just the New Testament alone.

Earlier someone told me the Bible is the only historical account of Jesus. If this is true, then it really does not matter what those 25,000 manuscripts say; if we cannot check them against other sources then I believe it would be foolish to trust them literatim

Interesting, because the person who told you that is wrong. There are other extrabiblical accounts about Jesus, and some of the most noted come from His enemies, namely there are some rather negative remarks made about Him in the Talmud no less. Jesus's enemies thought He was real, and they wrote Him up in the Talmud, calling him an illegitimate son (Mamzer in Hebrew) They accused him of sorcery, and said other things about him that were derogatory. Keep in mind the Talmud was contemporary with Jesus. Jesus' enemies do not deny what He said; in fact, is because He did say the things that the Bible attributes to Him, that they hated Him. It was His Words, His declaration of being the Son of God, of being pre-existant with God, that made Him so many enemies.

Secondly, the 25,000 manuscripts are pretty important because we have more mansuscript evidence for the Bible than we do for any other major literary work in ancient times. The problem is that those 25,000 NT mansuscripts in Greek show no significant variance. Grammatical or spelling errors are there, but there is no textual disagreement whatsoever. No other ancient literary work has as much weight. We can be more sure about the accuracy of the Bible than we can the writings of Pliny the younger.

QUOTE

Secondly, we do not worship the Bible. We read it, and we believe it, but we do not worship it.

Would you feel comfortable using the Bible as a doorstop? Or kindling? If it is really just another worldly object then you should have no problem doing this.

I did not say that we see it as just another worldly object. Anything that is important to you, you take care of and treat responsibly. That does not mean you worship it. Please stop trying to make overstatements you know are not true. We do have a special affection the Bible. If a man holds on to all of his wife's love letters and keeps them in a special place, is he "worshipping" them? Of course, not. He simply treats them with special care because they represent the person he loves. In the same way, most of us do not use the Bible as coaster or a paper weight because the Bible is special to us. We believe it comes from the heart of God and so we treat it with respect.

QUOTE

To assert that perhaps Jesus did not say that, lacks a seriuous amount of intellectual credibility.

It's not an intellectual claim, just a hunch. But keep in mind the Bible also lacks a serious amount of intellectual credibility in the academic community.

Yes, but that is not how truth is arrived at. The problem is that you said there is no doubt in your mind that Jesus' words are falsely attributed to Him. That goes beyond a hunch. See, it is just too convenient. If you are confronted with something Jesus says you don't like, you have a constant fall back position. You don't have to deal with what Jesus said if you simply use the excuse that Jesus didn't say it. There is nothing intellectual about that position. It is just a crutch.

[undone]

I said there is no doubt Jesus' words have been altered. My hunch is that Jesus was like a Western Buddha, a teacher of compassion and love. Of earthly things.

I've never considered my disbelief in God and Jesus as a crutch before. I always saw things the other way around.

Reality is bigger than we can ever know. It is too big to stake on a book.

So which is it? In one sentence you only question the biblical account of Jesus, the next it's disbelief in Him.

The reality of The Kingdom of Heaven is bigger than we could ever know. The stakes are too high to go with a hunch. Naturalism is your crutch as far as I can tell. Naturalism will never ease your conscious and give you rest from the uncertainty of your eternal future.

But you can solve that problem right now by placing that burden on Jesus Christ.

[cjrose]

I said there is no doubt Jesus' words have been altered. My hunch is that Jesus was like a Western Buddha, a teacher of compassion and love. Of earthly things.

I've never considered my disbelief in God and Jesus as a crutch before. I always saw things the other way around.

Reality is bigger than we can ever know. It is too big to stake on a book.

So which is it? In one sentence you only question the biblical account of Jesus, the next it's disbelief in Him.

The reality of The Kingdom of Heaven is bigger than we could ever know. The stakes are too high to go with a hunch. Naturalism is your crutch as far as I can tell. Naturalism will never ease your conscious and give you rest from the uncertainty of your eternal future.

But you can solve that problem right now by placing that burden on Jesus Christ.

Amen!! Don't waste another moment when you can know what you know is the Truth!! And that wisdom comes from the Lord Himself when you invite Him in and He dwells within you. It all becomes clear and the pieces of the puzzle fit. Re-birth is shedding all your old worldly self and gaining new life in the Spirit. With that comes an abundance of love among so many undeserving gifts. But it is only when you give your burdens to Jesus Christ that you can see the light.

@}---->----

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 14 2006, 09:37 PM)

The problem is that you said there is no doubt in your mind that Jesus' words are falsely attributed to Him. That goes beyond a hunch.

I said there is no doubt Jesus' words have been altered. My hunch is that Jesus was like a Western Buddha, a teacher of compassion and love. Of earthly things.

The problem is that to say that, you would need what you would consider the unaltered words of Jesus to measure the Bible against. That is only logical. To say the words of Jesus were altered you would need to be in possession of documents that you would have to prove are the unaltered words of Jesus in order to shore up your assertions.

The problem is that we have 25,000 Greek manuscripts ,many going back to the early second century that say you are wrong. The problem is that the theory that Jesus didn't really say what he said, is attractive to you because it provides a convenient escape route from having to deal with the Bible as a legitimate historical document. It provides a way out of having to actually address the claims made by Jesus.

I've never considered my disbelief in God and Jesus as a crutch before. I always saw things the other way around.

Reality is bigger than we can ever know. It is too big to stake on a book.

Yet you are staking it reality on a words of a few scholars who, like you, say that Jesus words were altered, but have no proof. You are basing reality on a "hunch" and yet you find fault with us believing the Bible???

If we are wrong, we have nothing to lose. If the Bible is wrong, if Jesus was wrong, then there is no hell, no punishment, etc. We don't really lose anything major. If we are wrong, so what??? Nothing happens if we are wrong. If you are wrong, and Jesus is who claimed to be, and His words were not made up, or altered, then you the one taking the big gamble.

[cjrose]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Nov 14 2006, 09:37 PM)

The problem is that you said there is no doubt in your mind that Jesus' words are falsely attributed to Him. That goes beyond a hunch.

I said there is no doubt Jesus' words have been altered. My hunch is that Jesus was like a Western Buddha, a teacher of compassion and love. Of earthly things.

The problem is that to say that, you would need what you would consider the unaltered words of Jesus to measure the Bible against. That is only logical. To say the words of Jesus were altered you would need to be in possession of documents that you would have to prove are the unaltered words of Jesus in order to shore up your assertions.

The problem is that we have 25,000 Greek manuscripts ,many going back to the early second century that say you are wrong. The problem is that the theory that Jesus didn't really say what he said, is attractive to you because it provides a convenient escape route from having to deal with the Bible as a legitimate historical document. It provides a way out of having to actually address the claims made by Jesus.

I've never considered my disbelief in God and Jesus as a crutch before. I always saw things the other way around.

Reality is bigger than we can ever know. It is too big to stake on a book.

Yet you are staking it reality on a words of a few scholars who, like you, say that Jesus words were altered, but have no proof. You are basing reality on a "hunch" and yet you find fault with us believing the Bible???

If we are wrong, we have nothing to lose. If the Bible is wrong, if Jesus was wrong, then there is no hell, no punishment, etc. We don't really lose anything major. If we are wrong, so what??? Nothing happens if we are wrong. If you are wrong, and Jesus is who claimed to be, and His words were not made up, or altered, then you the one taking the big gamble.

A Warning: [Revelations 22:18,19] For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible has come down to us through the scrupulous care of ancient scribes who copied the original text in successive generations. Scrupulous care!! It just occured to me that so many who read the Bible and don't believe it are the ones who seem to continuously claim that the Word was embellished to make Jesus look credible or for other reasons that to me are just more excuses for not believing it is the Truth.

So, do you historians, scholars, whatever label you'd like to place upon yourselves, why read it at all and to some lengths I might add.

Until you walk in the Light of the Lord, you will not understand the truths written, you will not accept that which you do not understand as we do as the Lord's mysteries to be revealed in His timing. As long as you reject the Lord, you walk in darkness and even that you may not come to grasp because your focus is of this world and not on our Creator. Seriously, I am not saying this to judge, forgive me if it sounds that way. I am using "you" in general terms, so not singling you out runner but you are on a Christian board and I will not back down or look the other way when it comes to my views.

[TheProcess]

We aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can provide a "sign" or "wonder". God may be testing the Jewish people apparently. So was Jesus really resurrected? Whatever the case, on Biblical criteria, it doesn't necessarily make him a prophet or Messiah or whatever else.

I know the biblical criteria for what to look for in the Messiah, but do you? Please let us know what it is.

Well I could tell you about what is expected from the "Messiah" in Judaism. Other than that, you will have to explain yourself. But anyway, could you answer the point I was making? We aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can provide a sign are we?