Considering the historical evidence and His own claims, who do you say that Jesus is?

If you simply want to know whether I believe Jesus is the son of God or not, the answer is "I do". But I am taking your question to be "What does the historical evidence tell us about Jesus"?

While I appreciate that you see through the silliness of the Davinci code, the two of us would still have a problem agreeing on what constitutes historical evidence. If we are to rely solely on the material that academic historians use, and to interpret it as conservatively as they do, then we would probably have to conclude that Jesus likely existed, but may or may not have been an important character in his time. His holiness would be beyond the scope of the academic historian, just like the story of Genesis is beyond the scope of the biologist. Scientists work with the physical universe, whereas religion deals with the metaphysical. The two are not contradictory, just different.

However, if we still relied on historical evidence, but interpretted it more liberally (which requires the famous "leap of faith"), we might have to conclude that Jesus was in fact a holy man. My own church claims, like some others, to have an apostolic tradition, so that knowledge in both written and oral form is transmitted through the generations, all the way back to about 2000 years ago. The written knowledge alone, written back then and re-written by monks and scholars over the years to ensure its preservation, is enough to make the non-believer at least think carefully about the holiness of Jesus....

Reading the New Testament closely I think there are only two choices. He was either the Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected, or he was a fake. I do not think you can say he was a just a prophet. He claimed to be much more than this. If he were only a prophet he would not have claimed more.

There is ample evidence indicating that he did indeed exist.

I believe you. those who factor to the Bible as info of Jesus' existence leave out the point totally. There are not any modern archives of Jesus, it really is unusual because the Romans were fanatical of their record preserving. If a guy had roamed the area appearing miracles, it ought to draw interest and ought to were recorded by using the Romans. yet no archives of those miracles exist; nor are there any archives of his meant crucifixion or an earthquake on a similar day. i ought to bypass on. seem. The Gospel authors had an agenda: to spread what they believed to be non secular reality AND to manage the circumstances of their time. They were no longer writing historic previous; they were writing symbolically, as became the custom of the time. Christians who do no longer study the historic and social circumstances in which the Bible became written haven't any probability of an total awareness. How unhappy that they experience their lack of information. @ Thunderclap: You seem speaking out of a particular orifice. The so-spoke of as "info" of Josephus is a forgery in accordance to a consensus between Biblical pupils. in reality, a sturdy deal of the Bible is forgery as bits and products were replaced, left out, or fabricated by using scribes, non secular leaders, and heads of state with a view to help their perspectives and agendas. The Bible has no longer been exceeded all the way down to us organic and unchanged.

Do you have any REAL historical evidence, or are we supposed to beleive that whack job of a book called the Bible is a historical text?? As for his own claims - do you have anythihng written directly by Christ, or do you base everything you think you know off the lies of Paul?

Jesus wasnt even a carpenter!! the word was a mistranslation (yet ANOTHER one) which meant a Master Craftsman - but that could be ANYTHING - not just a carpenter...

Serious question - why do you fundies post these questions, then thumbs down anyone who doesnt think that Jesus is the Son of God? Are you that shallow in your beliefs that you just want and NEED people to agree with you? Why bother posting this if you know the answer??

In the words of CS Lewis, He was either a liar, a lunatic or He was who He said He was.

Based on the Historical evidence and His own claims.

I believe Jesus is the Christ not a liar, a lunatic therefore He must be the Son of God.

Since there is o serious historical evidence, I would say he was a character in a book.

"Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. Following a star would lead you in circles. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin. That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses."

To borrow a few words from Peter: He is the Savior, the son of the Living God.

Now to borrow a few words from Jesus: Forgive them Father they don't know what they are doing (saying).

ITNOJIRUs

well, there is no evidence for jesus. only cult stories.

so, i still think jesus is cult-myth character, like i always have. no contemporary writers or historians of the time ever wrote about jesus. all that came later, decades after his alleged death...

If he existed, he was probably a thinker who had enough charisma to drag a group of devoted followers. He got deified decades after his self-martyrdom.