This thread ought to be a doozie.

[ENUF2]

With your own words, please.

The original post said. "Is Jesus God or isn't he? And why do you see it the way that you do?"

My answer, "I believe Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be."

The rest of my post (from the Bible) is a partial list of why I see it that way. I also included the statement,"Jesus is either exactly who he claims to be or the biggest scam ever. I haven't even touched on fulfilled prophesy, changed lives or all those who have been martyred claiming Jesus is God. One other thing, do you know what the charges were that crucified Him? For the Romans it was sedition, For the Jewish leaders it was blaspheme (Claiming to be God)."
This just scratches the surface of why I believe.

Others can say they don't see it in the bible others say no first hand knowledge but yet you don't want me to quote from the Bible which tells everything about who He is. We believe in our heart and confess with our mouths (or our keyboard) that Jesus Christ is Lord and I will defend my faith with His book because He is the Word and the Word is God.

[JimmyHAD]

To be sure this is something that's very worthy IMHO and it's exactly what I'm referring to. But when you look over much of the scholarly work that's been done in this area you come away realizing that much of the modern claims are just as much a leap of faith to believe as the original claims of the gospels.

None of it can be proven and when you look at all the arguments you come away right back where you started IMHO. The most plausible explanation is the original (again, this is an opinion). Again, one need not be a believer in order to reach that conclusion.

Best Regards,
EL

I've gone back and forth between belief, non-belief and back to belief again. As Paul said in Corinthians, if there be no resurrection we are miserable. That is why I didn't vote. I just don't know. I can only investigate with an open mind.

[gugi]

But when you look over much of the scholarly work that's been done in this area you come away realizing that much of the modern claims are just as much a leap of faith to believe as the original claims of the gospels.

And coming back to where one started might be what each person has to discover on their own

That makes sense. Basically you are saying is all evidence is ambiguous so after one has looked at it in the majority of cases his original bias (formed by arbitrary factors) makes them to accept the same side they were already biased towards. But the fact that they have looked at a lot of conflicting evidence gives them a good feeling of accomplishment and make them convince themselves that their belief was affirmed by said evidence.

Bias amplification, who would've thunk it

[ENUF2]

What you call the book of John was written long after the facts, copied and / or translated a couple of times, and edited when it was made part of the new testament.

The meaning and the content of the English version in your new testament are far removed from what John ever wrote down, if he ever did. I can accept that it is -a- version of what really happened, just like the other gospels are descriptions written down by someone else.

It is, however, not a verbatim transcription of what Jesus Christ said at a given time.

There can never be a verbatim record of any conversations of anyone from that era. The original Gospel of John was believed to have been composed around 85-90 AD. The oldest known manuscript fragment is from around 125 AD. As for the meaning and content there is a lot missed if using only 1 translation. Personally, I like to cross reference 3 to 5 translations and refer back to the Greek lexicon for word weight and meaning when I study. In Antiquity there was not much error in translation to be found. When passed down verbally or written much care was taken. It was not just someone off the street person who needed to make a buck who sat down to copy scriptures. Scribes were trained in their art and because of integrity, honor and proof reading errors are not common in original scripture texts.

I placed this image on a thread like this once before.




Basically what it shows is 1st, the # of original language manuscripts we have of 4 different works of antiquity and 2nd, the # of years between the oldest known manuscript and date of composition. Could there still be mistakes? Yes, but it is a lot more likely in the other 3 works.

Understand my faith is not blind. I was not brought up with any kind of religious background. I have always been a studier, a seeker, whatever you wish to call it. I have researched other religions and creation theories, looked into Scientology read some really far out books by L.Ron Hubbard, Zecharia Sitchen and others and came to the conclusion Jesus is God and He came to be the sacrifice for sinners like myself.

[elbonator]

That makes sense. Basically you are saying is all evidence is ambiguous so after one has looked at it in the majority of cases his original bias (formed by arbitrary factors) makes them to accept the same side they were already biased towards. But the fact that they have looked at a lot of conflicting evidence gives them a good feeling of accomplishment and make them convince themselves that their belief was affirmed by said evidence.

Bias amplification, who would've thunk it

Actually no I'm not saying that. Read closer. You need Faith in order to believe the original claims of the gospels. The claims of the gospels are that Jesus existed and he was the Son of the Living God and that he performed miracles to prove his credentials. You also need faith to believe some of the more recent claims about the gospels. And of course the farther away you get from the original events of the gospels the easier it is to make claims.

As for the gospels and their intentions, setting and meaning - the scholarly arguments are, IMHO, stronger for these being as they've always been believed. But yes, one has to arrive there as an individual and not necessarily as a believer. And of course bias amplification could be an influence, but that depends on your bias. But it's also just as likely, perhaps even more so if one is inquiring at such a level of detail, that one could be completely objective in the matter and come away satisfied that such is the case.

It all depends on how willing you are to have your mind changed. Supposing that perhaps most who seek knowledge of such things are not willing to have this done to them may be painting with too broad a brush and may just be a good example of bias amplification in itself. ;-)

Best Regards,
EL

[JimmyHAD]

In Antiquity there was not much error in translation to be found.

Really ? If that is the case then Professor Bart Ehrman's body of work is in serious error. Since he studied the available texts in their original languages for the past forty years, first as a student and later as a college professor, I wonder how he could have come to such an erroneous conclusion ? Among the dozen books he has written on the New Testemant ,his best seller Misquoting Jesus: Who Changed The Bible and Why, is over 200 pages on that topic.

To say that believing modern bible scholarship is a 'leap of faith' equivalent to faith that the gospels are accurate doesn't hold water in my view. Assuming Ehrman's work is correct it is a matter of fact. Perhaps that is why he started out as a fundamentalist Christian and is an agnostic today. When he graduated from Moody Bible College they warned him not to go on to Princeton. I guess he should have listened to them.

[ControlFreak1]

Of course Jesus is God.
God the Son, not God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit. The Trinity as others have pointed out, and yes it is a mystery not just any mystery but as the Lord says a 'great mystery', which is just something that you can not completely understand. How could God turn Himself into a little baby needing to be fed and have His dirty diaper changed? You can't comprehend that. I'll bet that one really freaked the Devil out. The Lord couldn't have been any clearer or simpler than this.

1Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Post #15 by ENUF2 was very good, here's some more, just for fun.

These are all from the Book of Revelation

Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

You see that? Any question wether that is God? Or who it is?
Here we go, watch the birdy, He helps you along, check it out.

Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Still not sure? Turn to the back of the Book.

Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Hmmm .... same One still talking. Ok, LOOK OUT! IT'S A TRAP! ()
Here we go, watch the birdy. If you couldn't miss a bowling ball in a bath tub, you couldn't miss this one.

Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Got a set of eyes? Can you read? Got the Book? THEN READ IT!

[JMS]

Of course Jesus is God.
God the Son, not God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit. The Trinity as others have pointed out, and yes it is a mystery not just any mystery but as the Lord says a 'great mystery', which is just something that you can not completely understand. How could God turn Himself into a little baby needing to be fed and have His dirty diaper changed? You can't comprehend that. I'll bet that one really freaked the Devil out. The Lord couldn't have been any clearer or simpler than this.

1Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Post #15 by ENUF2 was very good, here's some more, just for fun.

These are all from the Book of Revelation

Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

You see that? Any question wether that is God? Or who it is?
Here we go, watch the birdy, He helps you along, check it out.

Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Still not sure? Turn to the back of the Book.

Rev. 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Hmmm .... same One still talking. Ok, LOOK OUT! IT'S A TRAP! ()
Here we go, watch the birdy. If you couldn't miss a bowling ball in a bath tub, you couldn't miss this one.

Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Got a set of eyes? Can you read? Got the Book? THEN READ IT!

If you are trying to convince me, this does nothing for me. What I am looking for is personal stories of your own "footsteps" if you will. What brought you to this conclusion? To simply point to the bible is an ineffective argument. A personal story on the other hand would be more effective. In other words what you believe inmost to the deepest depths of your being and what transpired to bring you to said beliefs.

[gugi]

The claims of the gospels are that Jesus existed and he was the Son of the Living God and that he performed miracles to prove his credentials. You also need faith to believe some of the more recent claims about the gospels.

Right, so what are these recent claims I need faith to believe in as well? You only presented the examples for the first assertion, but not for the second. Not that I can make a judgment either way, but I kinda want to understand better what you are saying.

It all depends on how willing you are to have your mind changed. Supposing that perhaps most who seek knowledge of such things are not willing to have this done to them may be painting with too broad a brush and may just be a good example of bias amplification in itself. ;-)

Considering the number of posters who have spent equal amount of work examining both sides, I'd say the brush may not be all that broad after all (I've noticed the same trend in other divisive topics like political, environmental, and social ones.) Of course, small, non representative samples and all that still applies, so I wouldn't be putting my name behind any conclusions. It's just a silly thing to ponder for amusement.

[Bruno]

Almost all of your assertions are based on accepting the views of a particular group or groups of scholars. There are very good, and some would even assert, much better reasons to discard much of what these scholars hold with regards to the meaning and accuracy of the gospel accounts. But you can't say any of it is proven.

There is very little that can be "proven" with regards to these accounts - what was removed or edited etc and to use such a phrase is what betrays the act of faith in a certain point of view.

It is true that I have a bias as to the interpretation of those parts that were altered. However, given the opportunities for carbon dating and archealogical / historical referencing, it is possible with a scientific degree of certainty which documents were written first, and which later.

So if the first versions of the accepted gospels stop at a certain point, and more is added / removed as time goes by, that would in my opinion be proof of interference.

That is proof to support my opinion. It is not my opinion itself.

Whether one is of the Faithful or not is an entirely different question from what one believes is the overall historical accuracy and meaning of the gospels. One can reject the message of the gospels and yet still be able to admit that they are essentially very accurate portrayals.

Aye. And I do as such. But if you reject the gospels, then you also reject part of the core principles of Christianity. I admit it is of course up for debate, but there are plausible reasons for arguing that Jesus was the son of Josef and that he had brothers and sisters, and was married. And where would that leave Christianity?