Zone1 Intelligent people have doubts RE Jesus

[rightwinger]

well, that makes a lot of sense.

Old Testament predicts the coming of Christ

Christ comes and teaches and heals and dies and rises from the dead, all written down in the Bible

but the Bible, you say contains no verification of Jesus!

Yes, a Book about Jesus says there is Jesus
You have faith that it is true

But Jesus was a relatively recent Biblical figure. He lived in a time and place where Romans documented much of what was happening. There are no Roman accounts supporting the claims of Jesus in the Bible

 

[forkintheroad7]

First, scripture is not a "magic book." There is nothing wrong with questions. One of the Saints mentioned, "Faith seeks understanding." Nothing at all wrong about having questions. It's the path to understanding. St. Augustine said something about this as well, but I don't recall his exact words. I'd have to look it up.

looks like 1srelluc has tossed out all belief and has only held onto to the NO WAY stuff!

if that makes sense... lol

 

[Votto]

I've heard that people who are exceptionally intelligent sometimes have multiple doubts, or I should say Questions, about Jesus, about the history of Christianity and etc.

Well, even not too bright people have doubts. But as someone once said, "a thousand questions do not make one doubt."

Whatever you call it, people have valid questions. For one, some people doubt Jesus even existed. Well, I find that one absurd because even non-Christian historians who lived in the first centuries spoke of Jesus.

In any case, I have had many questions and sometimes whne things are not going well, I have doubts about.. things like God really loving anyone... I don't feel the love 24/7/365 all the days of my life, to be sure.

But then when I have these doubtful moments, I remember the Real Presence of Christ.

And all doubts vanish immediately. If you don't know what the Real Presence is, you really should check it out... But Jesus has a tangible Presence and that Presence abides in His Church.

+

Without doubt there is no faith.

It's only a matter of siding with your doubts or your faith.

The choice is yours.

 

[Votto]

Good post

Outside the faith that Jesus was the Son of God is the question of where is the documentation that shows Jesus existed?

Romans were known to document key events in their history
A mere Carpenter like Jesus would not have drawn much attention. But a “King of the Jews” like Jesus would have been documented somewhere. Jesus drawing thousands of the faithful would have been reported by the Romans. As would his crucifixion.

Where are the written histories that corroborate what is reported in the Bible?

No such documentation exists

Jesus did not waste his time talking to sociopaths like Herod and the political elite.

Instead, he went to people that mattered, that is, those being oppressed by them.

Some things never change, do they.

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus did not waste his time talking to sociopaths like Herod and the political elite.

Instead, he went to people that mattered, that is, those being oppressed by them.

Some things never change, do they.

Very true..

But Jesus was no mere carpenter.
He drew followers by the thousands.
He was a leader who would have drawn attention of the Roman occupiers
He was tried and crucified for his efforts.

Yet the Romans did not document it

 

[Votto]

Very true..

But Jesus was no mere carpenter.
He drew followers by the thousands.
He was a leader who would have drawn attention of the Roman occupiers
He was tried and crucified for his efforts.

Yet the Romans did not document it

That is why the killed him, to end the movement.

Why then would they write about him, especially after his following increased after his death?

It is like the Left censoring all opposition to the Covid vaccine. You simply take their voice away and ignore them. Again, sociopaths rule government, always have.

But history is full of such examples. Egyptians would either ignore history that did not cast them in a good light or rewrite it.

That is what makes the Bible such a remarkable document. It sugar coats nothing. Their most respected Patriarchs, for example, were described as murderers and adulterers, like King David and Moses. The fact that the Bible sacrifices propaganda for the truth makes it much more believable.

 

[Ace Nova]

Good post

Outside the faith that Jesus was the Son of God is the question of where is the documentation that shows Jesus existed?

Romans were known to document key events in their history
A mere Carpenter like Jesus would not have drawn much attention. But a “King of the Jews” like Jesus would have been documented somewhere. Jesus drawing thousands of the faithful would have been reported by the Romans. As would his crucifixion.

Where are the written histories that corroborate what is reported in the Bible?

No such documentation exists

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.


Roman historian Tacitus referred to "Christus" and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[80] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[73] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus's crucifixion.
Tacitus was Pro-Roman, did not like Christians or their Cult - no reason for him to make any of that up.

Whether you believe in the Biblical Jesus is one thing but the vast majority of historians state that there was a person named Jesus in that area, he had followers, was baptized and then eventually crucified.



.[47][48]

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[8][10][49][50][51] Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[52] Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[10] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore.

Then there's the criterion of embarassment - the idea that it wouldn't make any sense to "invent" the story of Jesus as it happened because it would not benefit early Christians (the opposite actually - got them persecuted and killed) nor would it benefit The Catholic Church, especially once it became the religion of Rome because crucifixion was regarded as one of the most shameful ways to be executed. (Rome put this man to death by shame but now has become the religion of the empire?)

The assumption of the criterion of embarrassment is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create or falsify historical material that embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition. This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of multiple attestation, along with the historical method. The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus.



The Alexamenos graffito (also known as the graffito blasfemo, or blasphemous graffito)[1]: 393  is a piece of Roman graffito scratched in plaster on the wall of a room near the Palatine Hill in Rome, Italy, which has now been removed and is in the Palatine Museum.[2] It's often called the earliest depiction of Jesus. It is hard to date, but has been estimated to have been made around the year 200 AD.[3] The image seems to show a young man worshipping a crucified, donkey-headed figure. The Greek inscription approximately translates to "Alexamenos worships [his] god,"[4] indicating that the graffito was apparently meant to mock a Christian named Alexamenos.[5]

Alexamenos graffito - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, making up the story of Jesus made zero sense for Christians at the time and made even less sense for the Roman Empire - to incorporate Christianity as the official religion of the Empire - the idea that "Mighty Rome" would adopt a religion (as being official) who's leader was a man who practiced peace, spoke about loving enemies, was anti establishment and was put to death in a fashion that Romans would mock - well, that makes no sense whatsoever - anyone with the least amount of common sense can see that.


And obviously whether you believe the Gospels literally or not isn't relevant - the fact is that the Gospel of Mark is dated to 70 AD - long before most people knew about Jesus. What motive would an early Christian Cult have inventing the story of Jesus? The story was an anti-establishment story - that went against both Jewish teachings at the time as well as Roman Laws.

"Let's make up a story so that we can be outcasts among Jews and killed by Romans - and let's spread it all over the empire so our followers can be outcasts and killed as well"

 

[ninja007]

The Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real Presence
Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".

The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the Bible pattern)



Introduction: ONE VERSE REFUTATION OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION EUCHARIST



The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.



"And when Jesus had taken a cup and given thanks (Catholic transubstantiation happens here), He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood (Orthodox transubstantiation happens here) of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (Jesus still called it juice) from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”" (Matthew 26:27–29)

• 1. Transubstantiation teaches the bread the juice for the Eucharist miraculously changes into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.
• 2. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches admit transubstantiation is NOT taught I the Bible, but is based upon human tradition which has its origin with the apostles themselves.
• 3. Orthodox say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the “prayer of thanksgiving” before the proclamation “this is my body”.
• 4. Catholics say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the proclamation "this is my body" after the prayer.

ONE VERSE REFUTATION #1: If you carefully read Mt 26:27-29 above, you will notice that after Jesus “gave thanks” and proclaimed “this is my blood”, Jesus himself refutes both RC and Orthodox because he then afterwards called it “fruit of the vine” not blood. This utterly collapses and refutes, with no chance for rebuttal of any kind, the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.



BONUS REFUTION #2: The fact that Orthodox and Catholic BOTH CLAIM their ritual is direct apostolic authority, example and tradition, BUT they practice TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, proves transubstantiation is a human false doctrine invented in the 4th century AD.



A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:

1. No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
2. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
3. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
4. In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
5. In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
6. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
7. The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
8. Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)
9. The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.
10. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.
11. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".
12. We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence", is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!

 

[ninja007]

One verse refution of Transubstantiation

 

[ninja007]

Why is the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper such a controversial issue?​

Answer

The “real presence” of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper is a doctrine of Roman Catholicism (and some other Christian denominations) that teaches that, instead of being symbolic rites, communion and baptism are opportunities for the real presence of God to appear. In the case of communion, they believe once the priest has blessed the wine and the bread, the wine becomes Jesus’ blood and the bread becomes His flesh. They cannot explain how, but they believe this transformation (called transubstantiation) allows God to spiritually nourish the partaker to better serve Him and to be Christ to the lost world.

This concept is hard even for Roman Catholics to fully explain. They believe that Jesus instituted communion as a way of allowing believers to participate in the ongoing sacrifice of the cross. Once the bread and wine are blessed, Christ’s crucifixion is presented again to those in attendance. The ceremony somehow perpetuates the ever-present crucifixion. Even when the service (or Mass) is completed, the leftover bread is kept and venerated in thanks to God for providing the transformation and the nourishment.

There are two major problems with this line of thought. First, there is no way that a ceremony can recreate Jesus’ crucifixion. Several places in the New Testament claim Jesus’ death was “once for all” (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). There is no mention that the act of the crucifixion, which occurred within the confines of a linear timeline, is somehow free of that timeline to be as eternal as God Himself. The results of that act are certainly timeless, as it was that act that allowed even those before Jesus’ time to be saved. But we have no way of participating in an act that occurred nearly two thousand years ago, except in the symbolic sense.

That is the great controversy of the belief of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But on a practical level, the bread does not become flesh. The wine does not become blood. And no amount of belief is going to make it so. The more urgent issue is the false belief that God’s blessing and nourishment come through that bread and wine. Roman Catholicism teaches that liturgy (taken from the Greek for “work”) is the conduit through which God provides blessing and salvation. Essentially, in addition to placing the priest between the congregants and God, they also place the bread and wine between themselves and God. They believe they are blessed because of their obedience in taking communion, and that blessing literally streams from God through the bread and wine and into their souls.

This is not what Jesus taught. He said, “I am the bread of life” and “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:48, 63). Jesus is the bread of life, but He is also the Word (John 1:1). The bread that nourishes is the Word of God (Matthew 4:4), not a wafer somehow transformed into the flesh of Jesus. The idea that we have to go through a human ceremony to receive that spiritual nourishment is the type of belief Jesus came to abolish. His death tore the veil in the temple, giving us the ability to have a direct relationship with God (Hebrews 4:16). That veil was not replaced by the act of blessing and eating bread and wine.

 

[ninja007]

Why is the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper such a controversial issue? | GotQuestions.org

Why is the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper such a controversial issue? Is Jesus Christ really present in the bread and wine of communion?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[surada]

who knows?

This is why one MUST spend time in Christ's REAL PRESENCE. Because then there is NO doubt.

Man cannot produce something like that.. (Someone)

Produce what? Literature? There are too many errors of geography and anachronisms for the scriptures to have been written by God.

They were written by Jews.

 

[surada]

Very true..

But Jesus was no mere carpenter.
He drew followers by the thousands.
He was a leader who would have drawn attention of the Roman occupiers
He was tried and crucified for his efforts.

Yet the Romans did not document it

The Romans didn't care about an itinerant preacher. Herod Antipas wasn't the least bit concerned about Jesus. That's why Jesus was safe in the north.

 

[rightwinger]

The Romans didn't care about an itinerant preacher. Herod Antipas wasn't the least bit concerned about Jesus. That's why Jesus was safe in the north.

Maybe Jesus was under the radar.

But a historical record corroborating some of the stories in the Bible would have confirmed his existence.
Unfortunately, there are no such records

 

[Mr Natural]

I doubt pretty much anything written a couple of thousand years ago by a people who hadn't even figured out running water or flush toilets yet.

 

[TNHarley]

Why is the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper such a controversial issue?​

Answer

The “real presence” of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper is a doctrine of Roman Catholicism (and some other Christian denominations) that teaches that, instead of being symbolic rites, communion and baptism are opportunities for the real presence of God to appear. In the case of communion, they believe once the priest has blessed the wine and the bread, the wine becomes Jesus’ blood and the bread becomes His flesh. They cannot explain how, but they believe this transformation (called transubstantiation) allows God to spiritually nourish the partaker to better serve Him and to be Christ to the lost world.

This concept is hard even for Roman Catholics to fully explain. They believe that Jesus instituted communion as a way of allowing believers to participate in the ongoing sacrifice of the cross. Once the bread and wine are blessed, Christ’s crucifixion is presented again to those in attendance. The ceremony somehow perpetuates the ever-present crucifixion. Even when the service (or Mass) is completed, the leftover bread is kept and venerated in thanks to God for providing the transformation and the nourishment.

There are two major problems with this line of thought. First, there is no way that a ceremony can recreate Jesus’ crucifixion. Several places in the New Testament claim Jesus’ death was “once for all” (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). There is no mention that the act of the crucifixion, which occurred within the confines of a linear timeline, is somehow free of that timeline to be as eternal as God Himself. The results of that act are certainly timeless, as it was that act that allowed even those before Jesus’ time to be saved. But we have no way of participating in an act that occurred nearly two thousand years ago, except in the symbolic sense.

That is the great controversy of the belief of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But on a practical level, the bread does not become flesh. The wine does not become blood. And no amount of belief is going to make it so. The more urgent issue is the false belief that God’s blessing and nourishment come through that bread and wine. Roman Catholicism teaches that liturgy (taken from the Greek for “work”) is the conduit through which God provides blessing and salvation. Essentially, in addition to placing the priest between the congregants and God, they also place the bread and wine between themselves and God. They believe they are blessed because of their obedience in taking communion, and that blessing literally streams from God through the bread and wine and into their souls.

This is not what Jesus taught. He said, “I am the bread of life” and “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:48, 63). Jesus is the bread of life, but He is also the Word (John 1:1). The bread that nourishes is the Word of God (Matthew 4:4), not a wafer somehow transformed into the flesh of Jesus. The idea that we have to go through a human ceremony to receive that spiritual nourishment is the type of belief Jesus came to abolish. His death tore the veil in the temple, giving us the ability to have a direct relationship with God (Hebrews 4:16). That veil was not replaced by the act of blessing and eating bread and wine.

cannibalism. Weird shit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually, they didn't. The Josephus reference is fairly universally regarded as a forgery that was added in later.

Tacitus too? Pliny the Younger? Suetonius? Forgeries all, right?

In any event, given a choice between suffering a horrible death: crucifixion, fed to lions, watching your family killed, ALL of the disciples who were his contemporaries took the path of Akiva and chose death over denunciation.

 

[Resnic]

who says?

I know in my own world, the people who are the most intelligent --or so people think... are also the ones who are the least religious

And what's your world? 2, 10, 25 people? Out of what, 8.5 billion people? That's an awful small sampling to make mass judgements on.

More intelligent is also subjective, it isn't a word you can use as a yard stick. There are dozens and dozens of ways to be "intelligent" and dozens more in varying aspects.

And does intelligent mean more open minded? No necessarily. A lot of people who publicly denounce religion on scientific topics in journals and talks and such dismiss it are self proclaimed intelligent people and experts. They do so in absolute fashion, will not listen or consider others opinions. So a lot of experts I've seen talk are closed minded because they see themselves as so smart they know everything, or so they think. Kind of like a boss that wont listen to anyone "I'm the boss and I don't want to hear anything else. I'm in charge and that's all there is to it" and then things fail because they were so absolute they wouldn't consider maybe they aren't right.

My grandmother was a 98 year old country girl that didn't graduate from the 8th grade. When she died she had a daughter, owned her own grocery store, had tons of friends, owned a house she had built on 20 acres, and passed away with several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Was she "intelligent"? No, but she for not even graduating middle school she was very smart and savvy. She loved God. So does that mean someone with 2 phds is better than her or more qualified to say there is no god? No it doesn't.

What about incredibly successful people that obviously are very intelligent as you put it, that are Christian?

Jd rockefeller was a Baptist, founder of chik fila, and so on were all Christians. Charles Dickens was religious and we all know how intelligent and capable he is.

10 Iconic Christians in Business

Billy & Becky Epperhart welcome you to WealthBuilders.org

www.wealthbuilders.org

 

[JustAGuy1]

I've heard that people who are exceptionally intelligent sometimes have multiple doubts, or I should say Questions, about Jesus, about the history of Christianity and etc.

Well, even not too bright people have doubts. But as someone once said, "a thousand questions do not make one doubt."

Whatever you call it, people have valid questions. For one, some people doubt Jesus even existed. Well, I find that one absurd because even non-Christian historians who lived in the first centuries spoke of Jesus.

In any case, I have had many questions and sometimes whne things are not going well, I have doubts about.. things like God really loving anyone... I don't feel the love 24/7/365 all the days of my life, to be sure.

But then when I have these doubtful moments, I remember the Real Presence of Christ.

And all doubts vanish immediately. If you don't know what the Real Presence is, you really should check it out... But Jesus has a tangible Presence and that Presence abides in His Church.

+

I dub you as Sir Spams A lot

 

[forkintheroad7]

Yes, a Book about Jesus says there is Jesus
You have faith that it is true

But Jesus was a relatively recent Biblical figure. He lived in a time and place where Romans documented much of what was happening. There are no Roman accounts supporting the claims of Jesus in the Bible

oh, the corrupt romans didn't want to talk about Jesus so He and His Church are irrelevant and we can all ignore both..

sounds reasonable