Where is Jesus?

[theVOID]

Not talking metaphorically here ie in my heart etc. Is he in heaven? Is that where Yahweh is? Is it a supernatural realm? If the answers are yes then how was he raised bodily and therefore materially into an immaterial realm with no time nor space for a material body to exist?

Hes' hiding, we were playing hide-and-seek together back in some caves in Jerusalem and i never went to find him, he's probably still sitting there behind that big rock thinking he's fucking awesome at hide and seek.

[Godscreated]

"If we want to go with reliability then the four gospels are much more reliable."

This has got to be the dumbest comment ever posted on these forums, seriously. John is not even considered as a biography of Christ because it mostly focuses on the spiritual aspects of Christianity. The synoptic gospels were written by anonymous authors and were not given the names that are attached to them today till at least the middle of the second century. Mark being the oldest of the three was not written till about 70 A.D. some 40 years after the alleged death of Christ, and none of the the gospels are first hand accounts of the story of Christ. Not to mention that none, zero, zilch of the original documents are extant today what we have are copies of copies of copies. All these works have been written and reworked so many times both in editing and translations that I bet they are nothing like the original documents. So much for reliability.

"I'm actually going to see a Biblical scholar on the historicity of Jesus on Thursday. Do you have any short questions you would like to ask and I will post them on here."

That's like asking the pizza maker if eating pizza everyday is healthy?

Explain please how you know that the copies we have today are not like the originals. You have no idea what the originals had to say, you do not have any idea whether or not the originals were signed by the very writters they are attributed to. So how is it you can make such a statement without the original documents. Your opinion is bias by your own non-belief.
Would you go to a Bibical scholar to find proof against the existence of Christ, then why would you expect a christian to go to a nonbeliever for evidence that Christ exists. So many times nonbelivers criticize believers about the source of their material. Yet when Min suggest that we (christians) read Lost Christianites (which I did) and other atheistic biased books you believe that is the only relative material. Chat pilot you make very little sense about many things.

[KichigaiNeko]

@ godschild logic

[Godscreated]

It depends which biblical scholar you ask actually, since he might be biased by his pre-concieved beliefs to try and only look for evidence that might prove his case for the reliability of the gospels and the existence of Christ. If you really want something to laugh at then answer this question for me. If Jesus Christ was such a great man and teacher etc. and died on the cross as you say basing yourself on some false writings called the bible, then why are there no secular records of any of these events occurring throughout history from non-believers? Of course you could pull out the tired arguments about Josephus etc.

No secular historians during the alleged time of Jesus life and ministry ever wrote a single word about him. This is contrary to what the bible teaches since it says that he drew a lot of attention to himself and had a huge following Matthew 4:25
And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Yet no one at the time thought that this man was important enough to write a single word about him during his lifetime. His trial is no where in the Roman records etc. Considering that he was raising people from the dead and performing miracles everywhere he went I would assume that word would get out pretty fast and others would want to write about him or interview him etc. The words attributed to him in the N.T. may not even have been his words since there is nothing in them that is unique and is not found in other mystery cults that pre-dated christianity.

"Forgive me for asking a Biblical scholar but I attempt to be a seeker of the Truth and I also asked any other seeker of the truth if they had any sincere questions."

You seem to be seeking "truth" that only agrees with your beliefs based on your baseless faith.

What you mean you do not seek your truth from nonbelievers who's biased against christianity ha, ha, ha now that's funny. Seriously though you must realize that the people who followed Jesus were most often uneducated people as most were in those days so the likelyhood that they could write was slim to none. Now just because they were uneducated that doesn't mean they were stupid or gullible as you will probably insist, they wanted to see this miracle worker for themselves and so the followings grew. What size of crowds we are not told except on two occasions when Christ feed the 5000 and again when He feed the 3000. The Jewish authorities of the day were looking for a chance to kill Christ so why would those of education (those who could write His story) risk their lives, they wouldn't. One of the best reasons people did not write about Christ they thought He was here to free them from Roman rule not to be the new covenant of God for all people especially the lowlife gentiles. Even after His ressurection the disciples and Paul thought that He would return to them very soon but when they realized that this was not what was going to happen they started to write so that what He taught would live on till His return. As far as His trial is concerned prove to us that the records for every Roman trial throughout the history of the empire is with us today or even less of an acceptable challenge prove to us that all the trials by the Romans from AD 29 through AD 34 are with us today. For historians of the time to write about a man claiming to be Christ, well that task would have keep them busy writting about His prophesy and not much else. Also most people especially those who were not Jewish knew nothing of this prophsey nor did they know much about God so why would they consider writting about a man killed on a cross. Since most people did not believe a man could be raised from the dead, even Josephus did not believe it, why would they believe that any of His life was historical. However the history of Christ's life, death and ressurection was lived, is being lived and will continue to be lived till His return and that is the way it was intended to be.

---

@ godschild logic

Not my logic just logic period.

[Minimalist]

Explain please how you know that the copies we have today are not like the originals.

Because we have different versions of these texts in whole or in part which show that they evolved ( I know you guys hate that word...tough!) over time and to suit the political needs of the church.

[solja247]

If Jesus Christ was such a great man and teacher etc. and died on the cross as you say basing yourself on some false writings called the bible, then why are there no secular records of any of these events occurring throughout history from non-believers? Of course you could pull out the tired arguments about Josephus etc.

Time is cruel to histroy. We know very little of empires which were around a few milleniums ago. Just because there are not many unbiased sources doesnt mean Jesus did not exisit and was a good man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

People who deny Jesus ever existed or deny the resurrection, have one large problem, What started this new movement, which, in a few centuries would take over the world?
This was unlike any other Jewish sect. Something massive must of happened. So what was it?

You seem to be seeking "truth" that only agrees with your beliefs based on your baseless faith.

Not at all. After I am done with the side which affirms Jesus's resurrection and life I attend to read some of the German theologians work, which attempted to destroy the Historicty of Jesus...

[Godscreated]

Explain please how you know that the copies we have today are not like the originals.

Because we have different versions of these texts in whole or in part which show that they evolved ( I know you guys hate that word...tough!) over time and to suit the political needs of the church.

Different versions by who. That response does not answer my question if we do not have the originals then how do you know what we have now isn't the same as the originals. You can't.

[solja247]

What you mean you do not seek your truth from nonbelievers who's biased against christianity ha, ha, ha now that's funny. Seriously though you must realize that the people who followed Jesus were most often uneducated people as most were in those days so the likelyhood that they could write was slim to none. Now just because they were uneducated that doesn't mean they were stupid or gullible as you will probably insist, they wanted to see this miracle worker for themselves and so the followings grew. What size of crowds we are not told except on two occasions when Christ feed the 5000 and again when He feed the 3000. The Jewish authorities of the day were looking for a chance to kill Christ so why would those of education (those who could write His story) risk their lives, they wouldn't.

Christianity was popular for slaves. However, there were Christians who could read and write and they did so. If a Christian writes something about Jesus it becomes biased.

---

Because we have different versions of these texts in whole or in part which show that they evolved

Um. No. Yes some things were added to the NT, but only a very small amount of things. You will see that the KJV has a couple more chapters than the NIV, which is based on the earliest and the most reliable manusrcipts.

[The Omnissiunt One]

It's recognised by most scholars that the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was added later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_t...Authorship
This is a fairly major story, too, as it allegedly demonstrates Jesus' views on forgiveness.

[solja247]

It's recognised by most scholars that the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was added later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_t...Authorship
This is a fairly major story, too, as it allegedly demonstrates Jesus' views on forgiveness.

Read an NIV Bible (KJV is a bad translation) It doesnt ommit the woman caught in adultery (That would inflame too many christians) but it says, 'The earliest manusrcipts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.'

So I dont see your point...