Question about Jesus?
825256
Jesus spoke in parables.
832133
Your discription of Jesus is way off base. \nThe reason we will know Him is because we have already met and been intimate with Him.\nSo knowing Him at His appearance will be no biggie.\n\nHow can you not know someone you are ONE with?
770034
Hello ast5792.. :)\n\nMan is still crucifying Jesus even today..by denying His Love for them.. :(\n\nIn Jesus Most Precious Name.. \nWith Love..In Christ.. :)
873252
Jesus is the answer to every question..  He is the righteous one who came so that we may have life.  Without Him there is no hope.  We are all like sheep who have gone astray.  He is our high tower, our fortress, our deliverer.  Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  amen
186937
Is Jesus Christ actually God?\n\nJohn 17:3, RS: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God [“who alone art truly God,” NE], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (Notice that Jesus referred not to himself but to his Father in heaven as “the only true God.”)\n\nJohn 20:17, RS: “Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (So to the resurrected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene. Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find the Father addressing the Son as “my God.”)\n\nDoes John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?\n\nJohn 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording.\n\nWhat is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os´ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.)\n\nWhat did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS.\n\nDoes Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God?\n\nJohn 20:28 (RS) reads: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”\n\nThere is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus’ own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as “gods.” (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as “the only-begotten god.” (See also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ being described as “a god,” or “divine,” at John 1:1 (NW, AT).\n\nThe context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus’ death, Thomas had heard Jesus’ prayer in which he addressed his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus’ resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: “I am ascending . . . to my God and your God.” (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (Jo
662842
The apostles after his death continuously referred to him as he Son of God.  But I look for a more logical way.  The scriptures said that Jesus was without sin and that he had no deception in him.  If that is true and it is, why did he always refer to God as the Father if indeed he was not. And why did the Father always refer to Jesus as his son if he wasn't?  If Jesus was not praying to His father as he said he was, would that be deception? Yes! If at the time of his baptism and voice came out of the heavens and said in effect, This is my beloved Son, if that is not true, is it deception?  Some say it is a MYSTERY and can't be explained.  the real mystery is how anyone can belief such rubbish that God and the Son are the same.  The only place that it says that I (Jesus speaking) and the Father are One, is referring to UNITY of belief and teachings.  Look up that scripture and go back to the previous chapter and the verses before that quote and you will find that the subject is unity of teachings and purpose and not oneness in being.  The Jews accused Jesus saying that he was God so they could punish him by death.  He never said he was.
1062372
Now that's a good question.  If one was isolated, and never taught about Jesus, and was basically good all through life, but, never heard of Jesus, thus, not believing in Jesus, would that person go to hell?\nAnd if he would go to Heaven, does that make Jesus a liar, since he said, you must believe in the Lord in order to get to Heaven.?
571625
Yes he is here. Jesus is everywhere on earth. The only thing is that he is no longer in flesh as he was before his death but spiritually.
172865
If you want to talk about or ask about Jesus . . . go to the religious section . . . where the rest of the nuts hang out . . . they will give you an answer.\n\nBut if you want my opinion . . . I am not very religious.\n\nJesus sacrificed himself for mankind . . . which means he had balls.\n\nAccording to the scriptures . . . New Test . . . the only way you can approach God is through Jesus Christ (which proves there is no such thing as the Trinity).\n\nAs for a new religion . . . he didn't start a new religion . . . it evolved from Judeism to Christianity . . . then someone else created Christiandom.\n\n(I know there are mispellings . . . but it is the end of the day . . . and I need to get home to my son . . . so screw spelling this time)
599842
Certainly that's possible, but why do you assume he was alive after having been crucified?  Why do you assume he was crucified at all, or that he even existed for that matter?\n\n...just because it's written in the Bible, a book clearly filled with outrageous myths and legends!?  \n\nIt isn't necessary to come up with complicated theories if you start with the presumption that the Bible is unreliable, and that we really don't know anything about Jesus as a result.
81697
Jesus is the one true God. Some people think that he was just a prophet from God, but he actually died for our sins. I mean the Jews rejected him, but what he went through at the cross, no one would have survived a part of what he went through. I am a struggling christian I admitt it, I am, because I am just not use to all the things that we r suppose to obey. But I am learning slowly. Hey but at least I am still learning more and more about God that I thought I understood before. The Bible is all the proof you need. I would sudgest to get a New King James Version to help you understand the words a little. I even have trouble understanding it. Hey I'm 15 I can have an escuse to have a little trouble. ~LOL~ Also look at Probvers, Acts, and Revlations. They will tell you of how he died for you, what is coming for us in the rapture, and how we should act as christians. I hope you take of what I said into concideration.
1008625
We are saying that the story of Jesus was probably embellished alot down the line. Perhaps he did not claim to be the son of god, maybe he was just a prophet or political activist who gained people's admiration - and ended up being persecuted by the politicians of the time for spreading his political message.
286041
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe
70418
If you claim that Jesus was only one of these three choices:::\n\n1) A lunatic (for claiming to be God in the flesh)\n2) A liar (for claiming to be God in the flesh)\n3) Exactly who He said He was (God in the flesh)\n\nthen you give me no choice but to say he was a liar.\n\nHowever, there are a lot more possibilities than the few three you give.\n\nJesus could have been one of the many people thought to have been the messiah, but that were proven wrong by time. Even the book of Acts in the Christian's New Testament lists two such false messiahs, Judah the Galilean and Theudas. \n\n          Act 5:36-37  For before these days rose \n          up Theudas, boasting himself to be \n          somebody; to whom a number of men, about \n          four hundred, joined themselves: who was \n          slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, \n          were scattered, and brought to nought. \n          37  After this man rose up Judas of \n          Galilee in the days of the taxing, and \n          drew away much people after him: he also \n          perished; and all, even as many as obeyed \n          him, were dispersed. \n\nWhat if the followers of Theudas or Judah the Galilean said the same thing, that either they were who they said they were, or they were lunatics or liars, or the messiah, with no other choice?\n\nAnd the reason they say that Jesus was only a good man and not Gd, is because we have Gd's promise in Hosea 11:9, where He said, "..for I am Gd and not a man." We have the same thing in Numbers 23:19 \n\n          Numbers 23:19 "Gd is not a man, that he \n          should lie; neither the son of man, that \n          he should repent: hath he said, and shall \n          he not do it? or hath he spoken, and \n          shall he not make it good?" \n\nwhich means IF Gd were a man, He would be a liar, since all men lie. IF Gd were a man he would need to repent, since all men sin.\n\nGd becoming a human, or a human becoming Gd, is the hallmark of the pagan faiths, where the stories of children of a god and a human mother, or the incarnation of a god, were told. Pharaoh thought he was a god, and the emporers of ancient empires were thought to have been gods, or the children of gods.
375207
"There is actually quite a bit of written history from that time period that proves he did exist. But thanks for playing anyways."\n\nHAHAHAHAHAHA.... prove it. Show me one single piece of paper and I will believe you. The fact of the matter is, there was NO record of a historical jesus. In fact, St. Paul (who recorded the very first story of "Jesus") didnt mention anything about a virgin birth, miracles, or even this plane of exsistance. It was set in the same relm as Zeus, Hera, and other fictional characters. There are no writings from ANYONE who supposedly followed "jesus". If you know of any first hand evidence, I will gladly look at it and convert my faith if its true. So heres your big chance, all you good christians out there... In fact, Im gonna make it a new topic.
904239
I am very surprised that this had no replies before me!\nI probably am not the best person to answer as Im not particularly religious.  I was brought up attending church but to me Jesus is pretty much just a fictional character in a very old book ( that probably wasnt translated very accurately anyway!)...;
740595
Would that be classified as another mystery of Christ? I believe even those who do not know of Jesus must feel his presents withnin creation. He is all in all. Yes interesting.