The First Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonbeam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Recently viewed the story on the history channel.
I didn’t perceive the story to be atheistic in it’s approach.
The story in itself restored my belief in Jesus as our Saviour.
I looked upon the stone as Prophecy relating to the coming of the Messiah ( Jesus ! )
There are many views that exist today on Jesus’s authenticity, all relevant, because all are
in search of truth.
What lies in ones heart is the key to truth.
Even though I have never visually made contact with Jesus that I know of, I do know that
Jesus is the path to salvation, ie. proclaimed atheist or non-believers I have witnessed during an illness, the 1st words that leave their lips upon pain is “Help Me Jesus”.
I rest my Case !!!
 
gene_garland said:
Recently viewed the story on the history channel.
I didn’t perceive the story to be atheistic in it’s approach.
The story in itself restored my belief in Jesus as our Saviour.
I looked upon the stone as Prophecy relating to the coming of the Messiah ( Jesus ! )
There are many views that exist today on Jesus’s authenticity, all relevant, because all are
in search of truth.
What lies in ones heart is the key to truth.
Even though I have never visually made contact with Jesus that I know of, I do know that
Jesus is the path to salvation, ie. proclaimed atheist or non-believers I have witnessed during an illness, the 1st words that leave their lips upon pain is “Help Me Jesus”.
I rest my Case !!!
Click to expand...
I’m wondering why you are commenting in a thread where the last post was more than 1 year ago!!
 
MrZetterlund said:
I’m sure Simon the wonderful is just one of the many “messiahs” before and after the time of Jesus Christ (Yeshua in Hebrew.) Do not be fooled, many Jewish men looked at the chaos and opression around them brought on by the Roman Empire and tried to take on the title of Christ (Messiah.) Jesus wasn’t a self-proclaimed messiah. I’ve noticed that not once did He call himself God in the gospel. But others did, such as the prophets and the spirit of Elijah (John the baptist.)
Click to expand...
We know from the Bible there were men who claimed to be the messiah, Acts 5 mentions Thuedas and Judas. They led rebellions, were defeated and their followers dispersed and that was all. The pharasee GamalI-el described the situation well.
 
Its just a TV show - the more controversial the more interest people show - doesn’t mean any of it is true - people believed that The Da Vinci Code was a true story but there it is in the fiction section of the book store but that didn’t seem to matter.Theres a show showing everything was done by aliens - another fictional show created to make money.TV is a funny thing - show a fiction story as a documentary and people will take it as fact.Some people are controlled by this idiot box and believe everything that comes on it as fact if its presented in a certain way.I personally don’t watch TV because almost all of it is garbage.
 
thistle said:
I did. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
You missed that he recently caught the show on the History Channel. Thus his recent interest in discussing it. The rest of us were satisfied with discussing it two years ago. 👍
 
The fact that Jesus story lasted 2000 years and Simon’s story disappeared shortly after his death brings to light a statement from the bible
Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamali-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”
Click to expand...
There were many men who claimed to be the Messiah, many men who brought up a revolution and were put down for it. Many men who died trying to be the savior of mankind… only one of those stories lasted 2000 years and formed the church. The very fact that only one story survived the test of time, while the others are buried in the sand shows that there is something more to the story of Christ.

All of those early martyrs dying for the story, shows they truly believed it. The fact that men have been dying for it for thousands of years, shows that is still alive and well.

— Totally missed that this post was from 2009!
 
I’m going to agree with the last post, this subject warrants further discussion. I am personally interested in how this “evidence” can be played down as it is just as compelling as the “evidence” for Christ. I am looking for serious, honest and open discussion on the topic, not an argument.
 
TimDonk said:
I’m going to agree with the last post, this subject warrants further discussion. I am personally interested in how this “evidence” can be played down as it is just as compelling as the “evidence” for Christ. I am looking for serious, honest and open discussion on the topic, not an argument.
Click to expand...
If you call this evidence compelling, why do you not acknowledge the much more logical and expansive evidence for Christ as compelling?
 
CrimsonThorn said:
If you call this evidence compelling, why do you not acknowledge the much more logical and expansive evidence for Christ as compelling?
Click to expand...
I am saying that the evidence for both are equally compelling and equally disputed, not one more so than the other. What evidence is there for Christ that is more logical and expansive? While I do not totally dismiss scripture, I do have to view it in light of its writing to promote a Christ movement. It is of no consequence to me whether Jesus existed or not,however, I would like to know how it is one “Knows” Christ existed.
 
TimDonk said:
I am saying that the evidence for both are equally compelling and equally disputed, not one more so than the other. What evidence is there for Christ that is more logical and expansive? While I do not totally dismiss scripture, I do have to view it in light of its writing to promote a Christ movement. It is of no consequence to me whether Jesus existed or not,however, I would like to know how it is one “Knows” Christ existed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying.

To answer your question, much in the same way one knows their great great great great great great grandparents existed. Probably little evidence to show their existence too, yet we know they lived otherwise we wouldn’t be here today.
 
I don’t quite follow the logic here. While you may not be able to name your distant grandfather, or know much about his life, you know he existed because you are here today. Our problem is more of a case of discovering a very old individual then attempting to determine if he is our distant grandfather. The fact that you know you must have a distant grandfather cannot serve as evidence to connect your lineage with the individual in question. Furthermore, how does this validate evidence for Christ and not for Simon in your mind? Wouldn’t the same reasoning apply?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top