Jesus my dear friend was a Jew he was circumcizes, he preached in synagogue(not churches), celebrated the Sabbath (saturday not sunday)read the bible my dear friend, he never said I'm the son of God or I'm God, or I'm Christian,
Now, I am not in the business of trying to convince anyone of anything - religion is a deeply personal matter that I strongly believe is up to the individual to decide for him- or herself, but I would like to logically respond, as the above is surely an interesting statement.
I am only left to wonder aloud if perhaps you are in sole possession of a number of two-thousand-year-old DVDs which might prove your case? If not, your words have very little effect on those who believe that though history as written down by man in any form obviously has its flaws, biases, unduly influential political machinations, deliberately misleading innuendo and outright falsifications, there were nevertheless many firsthand eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus who wrote down what they saw and heard - THEN, and not 300 years later. I would suggest you revisit your chronology of the writing of the Gospels. It is completely innaccurate, according to a majority of theologians and historians.
As for Christianity not being proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth himself, no, the specific name is derived from his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead, again, witnessed by many credible people, which is why subsequently so many gave their lives in the Colosseum, refusing to deny his message, even under threat of a hideous death.
Now, I wonder how you would explain the sacraments of baptism and communion, if Jesus were not bringing a new message to the world? There were eyewitnesses to both.
In the end, whether you believe in any religion or not, on a rational level, comes down to whether you find eyewitness testimony credible or not. None of us can absolutely prove to a scientific or legal standard any religion. (The absence of God cannot be proven, scientifically, either. My first question to a scientist would be, now please explain where the Big Bang came from? Science has as yet no answer.) At that point, the bar is more akin to that in a civil proceeding, where "a preponderance of the evidence" rules. In effect, what is more believable than the alternative(s)? I believe that each human being must decide that question - or admit he or she simply does not know and reserves judgment, also a fair position to take I think - and take that mental leap, alone. |
