The Existence of Jesus Christ

Well arachno, people have spiritual experiences and interpret them differently or even disbelieve they happened after awhile. I tend think there will always be the opportunity to doubt, to reject the believing perspective because to believe contains an element of risk since perhaps one is wrong about what they think occurred.Doubt too is risky.For myself, I really have come too far with Jesus to doubt He exists. I can doubt I am hearing the right thing, that I understand His message, the Bible, etc,....but truth must be built upon truth, and for me, Jesus has proven Himself as real beyond all reasonable doubt.And that's the thing about these discussions. The implication is that faith or beliefs can be arrived at exclusively via objective analysis, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as pure objective analysis in the human heart, and if there is, it is subject to the presuppositions one starts with.For me, with or without the Bible, nor any other Christians, nor any academic study at all, I would and could still preach Jesus Christ born, crucified and resurrected. I was not taught these things from people, nor learned them from academic study but received them in an experience you would probably call highly subjective or something, but which was, imo, an experience of a more solid reality, the reality I would argue.Let me add that perhaps everything boils down to subjective experience first, and then the objective analysis. Life consists of subjective experience. We base our objectivity then upon subjective experience first, not the other way around.So we have different starting points due to differing experiences, and perhaps that makes convincing someone via reason alone insufficient. They must partake of the experiential knowledge of Christ somehow.

Well, indulge me a bit then....What sort of experiences did you have with the Holy Spirit, recognizing that maybe you are not sure, perhaps, if it was the Holy Spirit or something else?In other words, what was your personal experience with what you felt was God at the time, and how have you come to think of it now?Imo, I think like Paul, that if Christ is not risen, we are of all men most miserable, but trying to explain that gets into a lot of esoteric areas concerning the Cross and spiritual warfare.I will say this about myself, at personal risk here on this board, in an effort to encourage you to disclose some of your personal history. Many of my ideas on reality, such as a non-static past, stemmed from direct experience and spiritual experimentation, mostly nearly 20 years ago as a young man.But the discoveries and their implications were so astounding that I generally learned not to discuss them with people, and despite knowing their veracity, it was quite a shock to my world. Along with these revelations and discoveries were things like understanding there were such things as spiritual forces and beings, and not all good, and that was very unnerving considering I was not raised to consider anything like that to be anything other than a myth.But what I found incredibly intriguing is how quantum physics and physics research began to explain my perceptions and experience of reality. It was amazing. Even side issues, such as one day thinking about how prime numbers were a key to understanding "superpositional math" (that was the phrase in my head that I felt like the Holy Spirit was discussing with me) that involved QM effects, well to learn that my idea which stemmed direct from God, imo, or some sort of communal ESP maybe, that there were a ton of folks working on that issue was very exciting as far the science.But that was more of a thought, or inspiration, and perhaps not even from God or correct, though I think it is.The experiences referred to earlier in the post were of a qualitatively different nature.This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 02:07 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 02:25 AM

That's sort of too bad if you cannot think of even how to relate your religious experience with God on a personal level.But if you do not wish to discuss it, that's fine, and I mean that sincerely. At the same time, to post of how you used to think along similar lines or some such sort of violates that to a degree, but it is still understandable.Imo, one's subjective experience of God or lack thereof, or failure to recognize something was indeed God, probably has a whole lot to do with their faith, and their presuppositions, and thus affects their suppossed objective analysis in this area.

Well, this gets back to why would Christ crucified be a stumbling block to the Jews and Gentiles in the way Paul presents it, and others?If he were able to spin this as simply an esoteric mystery religion, it's hard to see how the pagans would have been offended.If this were a gnostic thing with really more than one god, since Christ is rejected by the false god of material, then it is doubtful the pagans would have minded.Basically, all the evidence we have suggests that they really believed in the Resurrection and were killed for that beleif. They deny Jesus' rose from the dead, and present him as an enlightened Rabbi, and they basically would have been fine, for the most part, and not faced such intense persecution.Moreover, it's really a strain to place the New Testament date of writing outside of the first century. Basically, the scoffers want to remove all of the evidence we have, and then deduce from mere imagination what could have been, if we discount, without good reason I might add, the New Testament as historically being written by early Christians.

I've been fortunate to have the Lord help me with my doubts and lack of knowledge when I did not deserve it.As far as the gospel story of Jesus being born in the world, being crucified for our sins, and rising again, I know that this is true, and not because man taught it to me, or via academic study or anything like that.Unfortunately, I cannot prove that to you. You have to make the journey for yourself. I was unusual to have the Lord show those things to me without the aid of men. That's not how it usually goes, but I suppose like Thomas, God had mercy on me.

1.6, no I do not claim that, except on a very narrow area, namely the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You said "WITHOUT a mention of Jesus", but then show a quote where he did mention "the Lord Jesus."Case closed buddy. He did mention Jesus so you are wrong here.This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 03:28 AM

Codetrainer is 100% right. The early apostles believed they saw the Risen Jesus.Iason, your whole case rests on discrediting the gospels and the New Testament, but you then believe sources far more likely to be spurious.Sorry, but it does not wash. You want to keep posting page after page on it, that's your business, but there's no evidence any of the NT was written in the 2nd century, nada, and you have shown none.You have mentioned some scholars who claim that, but the fact is if most scholars agreed with all that you are saying, they would reject the idea that Jesus ever existed, but they don't do that now, do they?So you want to use "scholars" to back you up, and then reject the majority scholar opinion on Jesus.Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.I don't rely on scholars, that is true, for my faith as it is borne from a personal relationship with God, and I was very secular prior to that. It took a lot of convincing from God to change my views and ways.My argument on the scholar angle thus is just to point out the inconsistency in your argument on that.

Iason, do I need to repost the entire list?OK, here it is.Your evidence: First of all, even if what you had claimed was true, whooppee. So what! God or Jesus, both work fine.But he does mention Jesus. Keep in mind the book was not written in chapter and verse.Paul mentions Jesus specifically as commanding this in verse 4:2 and verse 4:9 is part of the instructions "of Jesus Christ."Also, take note that Paul once again reiterates the bodily death, resurrection and return of Jesus Christ in verse 4:14. Sounds like he mentioning Jesus all over the place to me.You claimed: Uh wrong, Paul quotes this verse as an appeal to walk in grace right now, not as an eschatological teaching which seems to be topic you are referring to, and Paul precedes this with clear references to Christ in the preceding verses over and over again. Take a look at 2 Cor. 5: 13:14. Heck, look at 1 Cor. 15: 3-6. Paul specifically and unequivocally refers to the gospels message, completely contrary to the claims of scholar's you quote. If you are going to quote these letters as truly being from the apostle Paul, it is absurd on the face of it make the claims these guys are doing. Specifically, Paul:1. Confirms the historical life, death and bodily resurrection of the man Jesus Christ.
2. Confirms there were 12 apostles and others that witnessed this event, that saw Jesus in a Resurrected form.
3. That at the time of writing Corinthians, most of these men were still alive and their testimony available to the people Paul was preaching to.You claim: There is no need to mention the baptism into Jordan of Jesus since Paul is referring to the believer's own baptism, not how Jesus was also baptized. Furthermore, the reference is Rom. 6.3, not 6.2 as stated. It would make no sense to mention Jesus's baptism into Jordan here since Paul is talking really of the Cross and being baptized spiritually into the death of Jesus in order to walk in "new life." And? I mean this is exactly what one would expect. Jesus eschewed political revolution and Paul does the same. Note though the concept of separation here, which on it's own is quite radical for that time. He speaks of those entrusted as ministers of justice, but which is distinct and separate from the ministers of the gospel. Early on, there is total separation between ecclesiastical matters and secular matters in the sense they are 2 different spheres with 2 different sets of authority, one ministers through the truth of the gospel and the other through "the sword". Wrong again. Paul refers to Jesus having already come once and died in the immediate preceding sentences and within the same paragraph, verse 1:6 (in light of verse 15-3-6) which says what his "testimony about Christ" is. He further alludes to Jesus coming as the Messiah in his earthly ministry in the following verses:1 Cor. 1:13-17
1 Cor.1:23
1 Cor.2:2
1 Cor.2:8
1 Cor.3:11
1 Cor.5:7
1 Cor.7:23
1 Cor.9:5 (which mentions Jesus' natural brothers, .....) Paul refers to Jesus' natural brothers as fellow ministers here. How could Jesus not have lived and have natural brothers. Keep in mind the context. Paul is talking about apostles here, and the New Testament and Paul state that James became an apostle (Jesus appearing to him), and tradition and textual evidence suggest Jesus' other brother also became either an apostle or church leader of that stature.This is getting tiring.This message has been edited by randman, 06-05-2005 04:24 AM

You have an odd concept of tolerant considering the Christians were fed to the lions. Moreover, you misunderstand the nature of pagan and ancient religious belief entirely. Christians and Jews were not persecuted because they were intolerant, and pagan Rome was not a tolerant soceity towards others. That's just wishful thinking on your part.No, the real answer is the ancient world had a basic religious belief of "one religion for one people" and thought violating that produced curses from the gods, and irregardless, created a divisive soceity. The principle of religious freedom as Jesus espoused was a totally alien concept, even for the Jews, and the truth is no society ever really adopted that concept, in terms of the rulers and throughout, until the Quakers and the Baptists were allowed to start colonies in America. The Quakers were mocked and scoffed at for even suggesting religious freedom would work.Rome though had a problem because there many different religions. So they required everyone to take a religious oath and participate in a common sacral rite, and in doing so conform to religious unity even within diversity.You are right to see parallels in multi-faith, multi-cultural concepts of today, but you mistake the root and meaning of it. The reason Rome was so upset is they did not believe, nor think, true religious freedom and individual freedom could work. I would argue there are some parallels to today's liberal mindset as well, but that's a different thread.They genuinely felt to grant the people the right to have a separate religion without tied to their religion and a sacral rite would result in disaster. They allowed it reluctantly for the Jews because at least the Jews were clinging to "one religion for one people" and not upsetting the applecart too much.The Christians on the other hand boldly presented the idea that you could have, even within the same family, pagans and Christians without the Christians making any oath to the pagan's gods. That was outrageous, and totally contrary to the beliefs of the ancient world, and except where Christianity has had a great influence, it is still that way today.You may have Hindus and Budhhists and Moslems living side-by-side, at times peacefully, but let some family members switch to a different religion, and all Hades breaks loose. Apples and oranges. The folks that died at Masada were political revolutionaries, which explains that quite well. This where you are being intellectually dishonest. Rome martyred whether through the church or otherwise. Please note that the fact Roman Catholicism abandoned the principle of religious liberty proves my point. The early Christians advocated volunteerism. You could be a Christian or not. It was your choice.The Empire made a deal. We'll quit killing you and even make your religion be the official state religion, as long as you let us change a few things, chief of which is we have to maintain religious unity, and thus the idea of religious liberty had to go.It wasn't that bald-faced, mind you. It was more subtle, and you can imagine the Christians' relief to find out they wouldn't be persecuted so much anymore, and so it is understandable that they would accept the Empire's help, but it was the spirit of the Empire doing the killing, not the Spirit of Jesus Christ.But something many don't realize is that many Christians never accepted Roma's authority, and clung to the original principles, and were persecuted as various sects throughout the ages, even by Luther, Swingli and company. One of the more telling evidence of this is that certain names of derision were levied at these Christians, and all reflected specific evangelical doctrines that eventually won the day. One of the chief principles was the concept that only those born-again were part of the Church and subject to it's rule, and that rule did not include the method of the sword of the magistrate.That's why the term "separation of Church and State" was coined by Christians, used as early as the Donatists, and a chief rallying cry of the Anabaptists.On the rest of your post, I can only express my sorrow that you feel Jesus Christ is not real and alive and present even now, and that somehow the behaviour of Christians has turned you away. I would caution you though to be honest with yourself and realize that within any camp, even those holding to your beliefs, there is a wide range of people, and even evil people of the worst sort. If you are going to base your faith on people, then you will be sadly disappointed no matter what that faith is.As far as Jesus, I can just tell you He is real, alive, was genuinely born a man, crucified, died and was buried, and that it's true, as hard as it may seem for you to accept.You seek for reality hard enough, you will find Him. I hope that day comes sooner than later.

But you accept the persecutions were real when done by the Catholics. Why not just throw it all out? I mean there is no basis to claim that Rome did not persecute the Christians, bitterly even at times.But one thing I think you may be missing here is that the primary people that were persecuted by Roman Catholicism were other Christians. If you were somewhat secular minded, you were just fine under the new Roman system because all you had to do was give lip service to Catholicism, same as they required for the incense before that. Sure, it put down paganism, but that ended fairly quickly and the real persecutions, the slaughters, were against Christians who held to the original beliefs, repetance and faith to be born anew by the blood of Jesus, that God's rule was greater than any priest, that we are all priests, that everyone had to voluntarily follow Jesus or it wasn't real, that God required purity, evangalism, etc,...The Crusades and Inquisition, especially in Spain, targetted non-Christians as well, that is true, but the Crusades were essentially war for territory more than religious persecution. The Jews though were persecuted like beleivers that refused to accept the marriage of Church and State. Don't confuse the issue. Jesus is either real, or He is not. The fact Jesus is Lord is not some statement denying any truth or reality anywhere else. Everything must stand on it's own. But putting Jesus side by side with other religious leaders is intellectually dishonest. Buddha or various Budhhas don't claim to the Saviour of the world, to offer their blood as the sacrifice of sins, etc,....It seems to me that in the name of accepting everything, there sure are a lot of people that reject Jesus, which seems to me to make their claim of acceptance bogus.If you have learned something true and good in any religion, fine, but what does that have to do with knowing Jesus Christ?

I believe all truth comes from Jesus. So if someone arrives at a spiritual place of true Self or whatever, they are in some arriving closer to Christ.Now, one would have to delve a little deeper to understand what all that means. Becoming one's true self, and becoming one with Christ, are the same thing, but that's hard for people to see. It seems impossible that you can be 2 people, or one person and "in Christ" as part of another, at the same time, but that's the beauty of the revelation of Jesus.While most Trinitarians probably have thrown out the Oneness side of God too much, and have an image of 3 parts of God or some such, as if it is 3 Persons in one God when it's really 3 Persons in one Person with all 3 being God and God being one at the same time. 3 are one, not 3 in one. God doesn't stop being the Father just because He is the Son.But God in creating people took a part of Himself, personhood, and made us, and it seems to be the highest level of being we understand, but God exists on a higher level of Being, where 3 can be 1 at the same time. Our math does not work and seem to add up, but maybe superpositional math stemming from a quantum physics understanding of reality will help us see it more from the natural one day.So we think of the highest state of being as personhood and so have a hard time thinking we could exist as more than one person at once, but it's no big deal for God, and here is the wonderful part. We can become "in Him" even so that He is "all in all", and yet retain our individuality.That could not be if there was not a higher state of existence, a state of personhood where the many could be one, and the 3 are 1 shows us that very real hope, that God in offering to swallow us up in Him so to speak does not intend the death of our individual identity.So when a spiritual or holy man knows "the Self", he is beginning to know Christ. Anything he has learned from Christ that is true, we should of course retain and understand, but often and this can be true of Christianity as well, the systems of truth that men create to categorize that experience and talk of how to attain that experience are usually flawed, and that's because reality is not a system to be understood and practiced, but a Person, and that Person is the man Jesus Christ, the Godhead revealed in the flesh, the Son of God.That's my preaching for tonight, and though it's preaching and not scientific discourse, it's still true.This message has been edited by randman, 06-13-2005 03:34 AM

Ramos, codetrainer just put a post out long on facts, and you dismiss it with that?Geesh, man.

Chrestus is close to Christ, and the early Christians were largely Jewish so his description is pretty much what you'd expect if he was describing casting out Christians from Rome. Most likely, many non-Christian Jews were also cast out as the whole thing would be seen as a Jewish thing.My understanding though is this wasn't when Paul was crucified, but maybe I am wrong.But there is also the argument that this fits well with when Paul met Priscilla and Aquilla who had to leave Rome.

Ramos and others, I dusted off my Introduction To The New Testament and must say that the scholars that wrote it do indeed accept the Apostle John as the author of the gospel of John.It's clear that 2nd century community of Christians overall accepted Johannine authorship. Otherwise, the Diatessaron would not have included John's gospel and been so widely influential.