Jesus – Real or Myth?

“Of course Jesus is no myth, he was a real person that was born of a virgin – who was inseminated by god himself (meaning that god is a male and has a penis), then he went about healing all manner of diverse sickness and casting out devils and raising the dead. Then he was crucified, battled with satan in hell, raised himself from the dead on the 3rd day, and then ascended to heaven on a cloud, and then he will eventually return to earth to proclaim his earthly kingdom, and then he will judge all the living and the dead peoples that have ever existed and then he will finally cast satan into hell along with all those poor souls that followed him (including me).

Yeah, you are correct there is some real hard “factual” evidence in that story, and it is not shrouded in a LIE at all.

Just for your own sake here is what myth actually means:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

This is from the dictionary, you know the place where words are described as to what they really mean and not what you want them to mean.” (Johnny Bird)

**Comment taken from ‘The Reasoning for Rules/Restrictions’

**Interesting idea that I think we should look into – thus a new blog on it.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Jesus – Real or Myth?

  1. Tough one to really get at – but I want to try to do some explaining here about this Jesus figure.

    (a) I think Jesus falls into category 1 of the definition “a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation”.

    (b) I think Jesus was a real person that lived in Nazareth in the early AD/CE period. Here’s a few reasons for this:

    – He is called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ in the first gospel (Mark) and this term sticks (a person and a place in that name). Like Simon bar Jonah (a full name meaning Simon, son of Jonah) Jesus is mentioned by the best name they could use at the time (and is even attributed to Joseph throughout the gospels). So we have a person’s name, place of living, and family…that’s quite a bit of detail to be honest.

    – Jesus was likely not that renowned in his time period; there is no proof for it anyways. In all the stories many people come and meet with Jesus but he consistently only has a few followers. He spends time in the villages, not the cities. He makes no serious trouble within Roman territory. He was only ministering for a 1 to 3 years (not sure how long)…but not a long time by no means. This man was not that renowned…only amongst the people he knew personally (thus the stories are all from within that community).

    That all being said, I know there are additions of ‘mythos’ to the story of Jesus (from what I think has to be Gentile origin).

    The virgin birth seems an addition of a holy birth to the story (more meaning to Jesus’ life) – like other gods of the time period. It also means when they called him ‘son of God’ they took that literally and developed the best explanation they knew of – God impregnating a woman. Only 2 gospels even mention this story and it can’t be found anywhere else in those 25 books and letters (not much evidence for this in all honesty).

    The miracles of healing and casting out demons – are not too much of a stretch…miracle workers of that day did exist (Jesus was not unique here). However, and this is a fact, those stories are based on faith (if we take them literal). However, the healings also have symbolic meanings – in some instances they relate Jesus to Elijah (prophet from God – a most renowned one). In Matthew Jesus is made to look like Moses (and the miracles do help). They are there to prove God was with this man…again a faith point.

    As for resurrection we know there is no way to prove this – of course we could make it easy and produce his bones or ossuary. But this is not something that has happened – and again it’s a faith belief. However, it is tied to Judaic thought and resurrection – not Gentile ideas. So it does have some credibility as coming from the original disciples community (or are we gonna start saying they didn’t exist either?).

    As for the ascension, a 2nd return, and the final judgement – these are also faith ideals and cannot be proven. But I will note the final judgment is clearly in Judaic thought and was likely part of the original teachings – since Jesus was Jewish and taught from that angle.

    The problem with Jesus is he is added to by Gentile thought so much after about 125 AD (John’s gospel) it is really hard to dig through church history and thought to find the real Jewish Jesus that walked with 12 disciples from Israelite territory in Galilee. This figure gets re-tranposed by Pauline and later Johannine thinking paths…until the creeds – and by then we have not a single Jewish perspective to weigh in to fight the inevitable – a non-Jewish Jesus.

    Here is a few additions of which I am pretty sure Jesus did not teach:

    (a) The messiah is the literal ‘son of God’. The term ‘son of god’ was used various times in the Tanakh for Israel, kings, and judges of Torah/Law. It should be noted the term messiah in Israel stood to mean an ‘anointed (one) king’ (which Jesus was charged with in the gospels) and in that sense of connection he was a ‘son of God’ (based on closeness of relationship). But if not in that obvious vein – than as a ‘son of Israel’ or ‘teacher on the law’ he can also be seen as a ‘son of God’.

    (b) He was divine. Jesus was Jewish and to teach this was beyond anathema – it was adding to God (the same God that sustained this community through the Exodus, the exiles, war, and now in Roman occupation) as One. God is never seen as more than One in the Tanakh and at the core of Judaism is ‘God is One’ (whether in the Shema or the commandments). Jesus also upheld the commandments and even believed the Shema (Mark 12:29). The jump to divinity did not come from his hands.

    (c) Jesus’ actual Paternal Father was God. Calling God Father was not new for that time period – Israel had been doing it for some time prior (since they were ‘sons of God’). Jesus used this term in many instances – and in his prayers. However, Jesus would not have took that term much further as literal…since it wasn’t needed (God was a Father regardless). However, in Gentile religions gods had wives and fathers – no long stretch to imagine such a connection for Jesus (example: like Caesar).

    So when I speak of Jesus – I am trying to be as realistic as I can be – and I see some addition in to church dogma (even into the gospels) and the misplacement of the validity of a Jewish Jesus. I believe in a Jewish Jesus that was a messiah.

  2. My main sticking point in the whole Jesus thing, and his popular mythology in the past 2000 years, is something that no amount of Christian circular logic and reasoning can rectify or even explain. Here it is: the absolute 100%, untampered evidentiary fact is that Jesus of Nazareth never wrote down on any parchment his own theories and revelations. Why not?

    – Insert your generic Christian logic and reasoning here, thank you –

    I have often been told by believers that Jesus was highly intelligent and that he certainly could read and write, do not even the gospels tell us that he read from the Torah in Synagogues before he was cast out of them, and that he was a rather inquisitive young boy? Or is that another thing that needs to be interpreted accurately? Well, if Jesus could read and write and that he was educated and intelligent then why no official writings of his own? Seems to me that if you actually believed your own bullshit then you would at least write some of it down for yourself and not let some mere disciple-underlings “interpret” your whole life and your message(s). Why not just do it for yourself and not have to worry about all the interpretations for the next ten thousand years. I mean, come on, Jesus never even had a real job to speak of and he had 33 years to write down his beliefs on his own. Then why not a gospel of Jesus, by Jesus, and about Jesus? Even in the gospels there is no verification of any kind that Jesus read what was written about him by his disciples and that he approved of it in any way. That seems kind of important to me if you, or others, claim that you are the Christ or the Messiah.

    Give me two weeks and I can write you a lengthly manifesto about what I believe and know to be evident about my life and I am 31. Jesus is only reported as saying a few revelatory things in the gospels, the rest is filled with his wonders, his miracles, and then his death and resurrection. Yeah, it is a compelling story, I saw that movie, and sure it is interesting. But is it the truth in any way? I have not seen nor heard any evidence in any way that says it is.

  3. “the absolute 100%, untampered evidentiary fact is that Jesus of Nazareth never wrote down on any parchment his own theories and revelations. Why not?” (Johnny)

    True. The actual reasoning behind that we do not know (since he never wrote nothing down). However we speculate – that’s all we can do. And I speculate he didn’t write anything down because he wasn’t around that long teaching and preaching (a year to 3 years). He may have also expected the kingdom to come ‘soon’ – which it did not – and did not see the need to write anything. Maybe they were not a ‘recording’ culture – even at this time period. Many things come into play.

    “That seems kind of important to me if you, or others, claim that you are the Christ or the Messiah.” (Johnny)

    Time is of the essence – 3 years (if that was how long he preached) is not a long time. He was a wandering preacher of sorts as well, maybe he didn’t see the need to write but to help people? This may just be the case – because the first biblical writer we find is Paul (a Roman/Jewish person) – and that wasn’t until AD50 some. The immediate disciples – although working in the communities as Christians – were not writing either. So Jesus didn’t write – who cares…this didn’t seem to be a focal point of his movement until it was noticed Paul was writing and the original disciples were dying. The reason for writing wasn’t there.

    “I have not seen nor heard any evidence in any way that says it is.” (Johnny)

    So what do you believe about this man then? He did not exist at all or the writings are a construct/myth for the Gentiles?

  4. So what do you believe about this man then?(Jason)

    Good chance he is a construct of many things. Myth and possibly real as well. For the most part its pretty clear Jesus becomes whatever one wants him to be. Some messiah, some saviour, for others fiction. Whatever floats your boat.

  5. “For the most part its pretty clear Jesus becomes whatever one wants him to be” (John)

    It’s true – in a sad way. The historical personage of Jesus is hard to figure out because the centuries of dogma building in his name and the variableness between the writings of the gospels, to John, to the letters, and to Revelations have kind of introduced a character that is really tough to pin down (as to who exactly he was).

    I tend to lean to he was a human being, Jewish background, that lived as a rabbinical figure in his immediate following…who died charged as a ‘king’ (ie: messiah ideology).

    I think many of the things he did teach are within the gospels (namely the synoptics) – with agenda’s obviously (these are gospels not accurate historical accounts per se). I think when we get to about John’s gospel there is a break from the original ideas of Jesus to a more concrete agenda movement to deify him. It seems at that point we lose his humanity for centuries to come.

    All I know is I like the teachings of the gospels attributed to him – namely Matthew (and James’ letter as a sidekick). I appreciate all the scriptures but I also realize that one we start using all 27 as some cohesive unit – we get into trouble with who and what Jesus is (since they are not all telling the exact same story).

  6. I tend to lean to he was a human being, Jewish background, that lived as a rabbinical figure in his immediate following…who died charged as a ‘king’ (ie: messiah ideology). (Jason)

    Yeah this maybe true about Jesus’ real life; if there even is such a thing – he still could be a part of some popular imagination. But even Jewish rabbis at that time and in the years before WROTE DOWN their theories and their beliefs. How do we know this, well because we have them to read in 2010. You cannot say the Jewish men at that time were not writing things down, especially spiritual beliefs. If this were true then why did certain disciples feel the imminent urge to WRITE THINGS DOWN a few years after Jesus’ death.

    Amazing battles and wars have been won and completely fought in 3 years, kingdoms have fallen and been established in 3 years. And you are telling me that in his spare time he did not have the time to write some things down.

    Che Guevara was in the mountains of Cuba, the jungles of the Congo, the lower-lands of Bolivia and he was actively fighting in guerrilla wars. Yet, he had full time to write down lengthy diaries and he even had time to philosophically reflect about his struggles in those campaigns. All he was using was the pen and the paper. Some of those battles did not last 3 years. So it can easily be done, Jesus has no excuse other than academic laziness. And if he was completely wrong about the “kingdom not coming” then he was probably wrong about most things – just a thought.

  7. “But even Jewish rabbis at that time and in the years before WROTE DOWN their theories and their beliefs. How do we know this, well because we have them to read in 2010.” (Johnny)

    And which books are you referring to exactly? Most books – extra biblical – were recorded well after Jesus’ life (fact) or maybe even during it (by a variety of people – not one). Here are 4 of the main rabbinic/scribal works and their dates.

    Tanakh – “Modern scholars are less certain, but some believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE” (Wikipedia)

    Talmud – “The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism’s Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh.” (Wikipedia)

    Midrash – “In general the Midrash is focused on either halakha (legal) or Aggadic (non-legal and chiefly homiletical) subject matter. Both kinds of Midrashim were at first preserved only orally; but their writing down commenced in the 2nd century” (Wikipedia)

    Tosefta – “In many ways, the Tosefta acts as a supplement to the Mishnah (tosefta means “supplement or addition”). The Mishnah is the basic compilation of the Oral law of Judaism; it was compiled around 200 CE” (Wikipedia)

    Notice the dates. Now if these core pieces of Judaism did not start finding their completion in ‘WRITING” until around 200-250 CE…why is it so weird Jesus wrote nothing down? The historical textual history prior to this was oral in nature – and there were writings most likely – penned by who and when…that’s another debate altogether (scribes? teachers? studtents?).

    “Amazing battles and wars have been won and completely fought in 3 years, kingdoms have fallen and been established in 3 years. And you are telling me that in his spare time he did not have the time to write some things down.” (Johnny)

    This probably after industrialization and the printing press – easy to record and committ actions of war on a faster scale (in fact, the Nazi’s beat Poland in 3 days and recorded it all). Point being, there is no point to that.

    My point is this – according to the known history of the NT era (circa 33 CE to 125 CE) – writing was not big in the religious mind-set. Why? They were an established religion already. What you need to know is when the battle for the description of either faith began to happen (Christian and Judaism) – then the writing began. Reason seemed to be everything.

    “Yet, he had full time to write down lengthy diaries and he even had time to philosophically reflect about his struggles in those campaigns” (Johnny)

    Okay, not another history lesson. Suppose Che lived in 25 BCE or around that time – and was fighting a war. Where do you suppose he would grab a ball point pen and some paper? The stuff he had available to him was way more easy to get than some papyrus (or parchment) or whatever writing utensil they used (including getting the ink). There was no mass production of any of this stuff, it wasn’t easy to make.

    Now Jesus may have only preached for one year (not 3 – no one knows for certain) mind you…writing may not have been a concern if he just wanted to help people and get his message out. Considering all factors, from paper to pen/ink to time to do so, it is fairly uncertain when and how he might do this (he also did not live in a city during his period of speaking). You may also be failing to guess this was an ‘oral culture’ in this time period. It seems to me the Gentile cultures did the writing – was this something only the moderate to wealthy could afford? Was writing a concern in Jewish culture?

    It’s just not as easy as we want to think.

    • Circular logic and circular reasoning, is that all there is to explain Jesus’ life?

      This is what the argument has amounted to: Jesus is not this therefore he is not that, no he is not this because he was such and such. Then his disciples did such and such, no they did not do that because they were really saying Jesus did this and that. But Messiah was this in Jewish oral history centuries before his birth, no Messiah was this and this, but Messiah was supposed to really do this and that. No, that cannot be verified to be true or false because of this and this and such and such and so forth. But the New Testament is this and that and the Old Testament is this but the Torah is this and the Talmud is that and the message is not this because it has to be that. No, that is not how it is supposed to be interpreted because it is this and not that. and blah, blah, blah.

      It goes around in a circle and has no known beginning and no ending and even that you will take pride in; which just proves the illogical mess that modern religion is and will continue to perpetrate.

  8. “Circular logic and circular reasoning, is that all there is to explain Jesus’ life?” (Johnny)

    Those searching for concrete do not like the wilderness.

    There’s not much I can do about my answers – I cannot provide answers as if there were mass recordings of Jesus talking, video of him walking, or anything else about that time period – we only have to use re-constructions (in which I include the gospels).

    However, no answer will suffice you – since you do not think highly of the gospels and their historical importance. I cannot change the time period – it is what it is.

    True, we can only speculate with certainty…there really isn’t much more proof about Jesus outside the gospels and letters.

  9. One of my favorite quotes goes like this: I contend we are all atheists. I just believe in one less god than you. you tell me why you don’t believe in all other gods and mythological figures (zeus, Ceasar as a son of god, the pope, etc…) , and I will tell you why I disbelieve yours.
    I think the problem with the Jesus myth is that it relies on a person believing the biblical stories. In essence, you have to believe Matthew, mark, luke and John. But to me, these are not trustworthy sources of anything. I can believe a person named Yeshua of Nazareth actually existed, but what do we really know about him. Not much, unless of course you believe testimony from some one who heard stories about him (not a disciple), who wrote them down and embellished them 30 years after Yeshua’s death and then finally some people 200 years later decided that is was a true story and worthy of being canonized.

  10. “Not much, unless of course you believe testimony from some one who heard stories about him (not a disciple), who wrote them down and embellished them 30 years after Yeshua’s death and then finally some people 200 years later decided that is was a true story and worthy of being canonized.” (Wolf)

    It is true Paul wrote in the 50’s (some 30 years latre than Jesus) and the first gospels likly appeared in the early 70’s. Many people see this as unreliable. I don’t. Here is my take.

    Just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean there was not collection of sayings floating around…in fact I am pretty sure there was because the original disciples did continue to meet together and proclaim this person (Jesus) as the messiah. I would have to wonder what they were meeting about or based on? It does stand to note that Jesus likely taught out of the Tanakh so they at least had those to always jog their memories.

    However, their culture was also not like ours. We are a media savvy environment and it is firmly believed since the advent of TV that our memories have become ‘short sighted’ so to speak. Now 2000 years ago, no media and a very oral speaking culture…they may have actually had to use their memories as their source of storing ideas. I firmly believe people’s memories were quite intact in that time period.

    There is a story about someone in the 1700’s or so who had memorized some poem that was considered the longest in the world (like 9000 stanza’s or something crazy)…from one of the European Nordic nations. Now that’s a good memory – and that was only some 300+ years ago. I will give 1700 years prior some of that lee-way.

    Now although none of the original disciples actually wrote something (and even this we don’t know for sure – just nothing has been found) – it is very likely they developed communities that kept these sayings and stories alive. I believe many aspects may be coming from reliable transmission through those methods.

    Mark coming first then Matthew…Luke followed as a compilation of these stories for a Gentile nation. Then John, well let’s not go there (was 125 AD or later anyways). In these texts (synoptics) we do get a fairly good picture of this Jesus person – saying wise. We are left to piece a lot together though.

    However, if we ignore the gospels and say they are ‘not reliable’ – then why should anything from that time period be reliable? Like Josephus? Like other Roman historians? It’s a known fact those are fairly accepted – even if they wrote with an agenda (and this is being proven that they did). We have to start somewhere to crack open that time period – and the gospels (which do have an agenda) are likely the most appropriate place to start with this Jesus person and his community.

    There are drawbacks (admitted) – but this is deep history and we need to know the limitations before we enter and be willing to accept this was nothing like our times (as far as recording stuff goes).

  11. “However, if we ignore the gospels and say they are ‘not reliable’ – then why should anything from that time period be reliable? ” svs

    But based on the oral tradition and the written testimony of the the Jesus myth, why not believe the Nanabush myth? or Hercules? Or Odin? or Ra? they all have oral and written traditions which would be just as reliable as the Jesus myth. They all did some miraculous things and said some things of worth. I guess I’m asking, why believe the Jesus myth and that one alone as being more real than any other myth? To me they are all lumped into the same category. I no more believe the Jesus myth than I do the Nanabush myth.
    Yes, the gospels are written in the time period of Jesus, but why just those four, why were not all the parchments of Jesus life taken into account? Why not the gospel of Barnabus or Thomas which are just as relevant and as real about Jesus as the others. Who is say they are not? You can say church scholars, but I am sure they were looking for books to cement orthodoxy and not truth.

    • Don’t walk down this path Wilf because it is a never-ending circle of explanations that go absolutely nowhere, except back to square zero. There are endless circles and explanations that have already been hashed-out in a previous discussion on this blog. And the only thing that we have come to understand is that Jesus’ life story is a reality based in mythology (an oxymoron) and it supersedes all cultural myths from ‘Other’ (gentile) cultures due to its roots in Judaism mythology. Which in turn means that the oral traditions of Judaism have much more academic weight than centuries of story-telling and myth building than, for instance, your own culture; if you can figure that out then go ahead.

      It is evident that the Norse gods, Greek gods, Hindu gods, First Nations and Indigenous peoples’ myths, Muhammad and Islam, Buddhism and Asian myths, African peoples’ tribal stories and myths, and all these ‘Other’ peoples are not on par with Judaism mythology and their ability to tell a really good story (which they sure as hell have proven that they can do).

  12. “I guess I’m asking, why believe the Jesus myth and that one alone as being more real than any other myth? To me they are all lumped into the same category. I no more believe the Jesus myth than I do the Nanabush myth.” (Wolf)

    I think some of the Jesus myth is surrounded in actual historicity – which changes him from Thor or Nanabush (unless they can be accredited to as being actual living figures also). So although we have some Jesus ‘myth’ we also have some actual Jesus ‘historicity’. That makes this not altogether myth – although I freely admit some aspects of the gospels are myth – this seemed to be a real, human teacher with students.

    I fight the temptation to want to make this person into a myth based on popular opinion about that time period (in certain circles). I also fight the temptation to overly mythologize this person into some God-person (as is the the case in most of Christendom). These are the polar opposites though – the truth behind Jesus is likely somewhere in between…and historically we can only re-construct him from the gospels (and letters to some degree)…throwing those out really helps nobody (not even someone honestly trying to figure this all out).

    The thing about Jesus is he is tied to a history (Judaism) that he seems to realistically fall into. Now if Jesus was flying around petting mountain creatures and proclaiming he invented the question mark – then I might lean towards total myth. But his story puts him right into a time period that does line up with his actual teachings and ideas…and even the messianic fervor…all within a piece of land built on these traditions and thought from Torah/Prophets.

    For example, Jesus never quotes the writings – the other piece of the Tanakh – and only mentions the Torah and Prophets in Matt 5:17-20. Interesting that we find out the Writings were not completed until some 100 years after Jesus was gone. It’s stuff like that that kind of points to some strong historicity (and his teachings bare strong resemblences to ideas from that time period – ie: the Essenes).

    “Why not the gospel of Barnabus or Thomas which are just as relevant and as real about Jesus as the others. Who is say they are not?” (Wolf)

    I kind of agree with you on this point. However, I also believe the most closest ideas to his time (earliest gospels) are the one’s that need strong consideration…and for me…even John’s gospel reveals something about the shift in Christianity from Jewish ideals into Gentile stronghold…complete with changes (which include myth).

    This is why some of the later gospels (for me) are quite a waste of time unless I do want to read some obvious ‘mythos’ – even an extended spiritualism of the inner and not the outer body (gnosticism). It would seem the later gospels were written quite a while after the time with the actual followers of the original historic Jesus (in Israel)…and may have strong Gentile influences weaving through-out them.

    It’s no question I call into question ideas that I think did not start within the Judaic followers of Jesus (who followed Torah/Prophets). I am not fan of the ‘son of god’ idea becoming about divinity. I don’t think the virgin birth was real. Many concepts from within Judaism seemed to have taken on more life than they were meaning to within Gentile thought and philosophy (like the dualism strands od Jesus being human and god debate).

    I try to get back to what the teachings are saying and where they found their original home…which seems to be in Judaic thought (namely in Matthew’s sermon on the mount). James’ letter seems to point to an original Jewish version of the faith. And this makes all the sense in the world since Jesus is potrayed as a Jewish man in the gospels. It’s not too far a stretch to think Gentiles mis-interpreted many of the ideas coming from Judaism…having little to no teachings or background in it.

    I am not saying this answers all problems – but I do try to address the questions you are looking at.

  13. I was the 7000th comment on this blog (wow)!

    Luke you were 6998 and 6999

    Wilf – you were 6997

    I was waiting for this day – and it came!

  14. “I think some of the Jesus myth is surrounded in actual historicity – which changes him from Thor or Nanabush (unless they can be accredited to as being actual living figures also).” SVS

    I am not disputing the reality of a person called Yeshua of Nazareth. An influential rabbi from the 1st century probably did exist. I am questioning the mythos around him and why I should believe anything written about him. The biblical references to Jesus makes it hard to believe that anything written in those gospels is anywhere near the truth. Maybe he didn’t invent the question mark, but he walked on water, healed the sick, rose himself on the third day, brought a dead man back to life, turned water into wine, fed 5000 people with 2 loaves of bread and fishes? Really I am supposed to believe those miracles? They are ridiculous. So if the writer has embellished those stories, how am I supposed to believe anything the writer says?

    For example: Wilfred Bird climbed Mount Ararat as a teenager and flew on a cloud to the local village and then proclaimed that everyone should be kind to all living things.

    I am person in history. Probably a good person, that is for history to decide 🙂 But seriously who would believe this story about me? I would be labeled as a lunatic. And no one would care what I said (be kind), cause no one listens to lunatics. And that is how I feel about the gospel story. they are so embellished that I can’t take anything in them seriously. did Yeshua exist? yes. Do I care what he has to say? Not really. there are more modern books and philosophies that help guide my life. Also my family and friends keep me grounded and not flying on clouds to scare local villagers 🙂

    Good job on the blog, and I have made my statement my facebook status LOL

  15. Here is why I believe the bible is Truth:

    From my understanding, the spirit is the words that we speak and therefore our thoughts, beliefs and “mind”; the non-physical part that is us as a man (or woman). In my simple understanding of the world, there is Truth and there is lies. Logic seems to indicate there is only one right answer to how the world began and how I got here. So that means someone is telling the Truth and someone is lying. Now the bible reports, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” It also says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” So Jesus is described as the Word of God and/or the Truth. So if Jesus is not those things, the books written about him are lies and maybe he is a liar, if the account is true of him existing as a man and that is an accurate witness of the words he spoke. Or the book is telling the Truth, and Jesus existed and spoke the Truth. The only way Jesus could be the Truth and that Jesus could be the Word of God would be if all Truth was created by God. So either all Truth was created by God or it was not.

    And if all Truth was created by God then the world has to also be his creation. As I see it creation obeys a set of laws or Truth. I see that I, Gerald Bird, can not create anything. I can not create the Truth or laws of this world to make things behave according to my desire. I can not create a new type of rock. I can not create a new type of “disease.” I can not create a new source of energy. I can not make gravity disappear. I can not make winter temperatures warmer. We can only manipulate the creation given to us. A creation that was either made for us with laws and Truth and reason, or a creation without a beginning. If it is a creation without a beginning, it is a random creation that obeys a set of random laws and random mathematics that existed forever but has never been created. I tend to believe their is purpose and reason in the creation I live in.

    So if Jesus did say, “I am…the Truth,” then he has cited a circular reference that could possibly be True if he was the Truth and the creator of all Truth. So either he is a liar, or he is telling the Truth. My spirit seems to believe that Jesus is telling the Truth and that my spirit was created by him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s