Did Jesus Christ Exist as a historical person? If so, who was he?

[Kalinago]

Romans 4:5 says Faith is righteousness for the one that does not work.
\Romans 3:26
26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:24
24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
Romans 5:1
1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we1 have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 3:27
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Romans 4:1–5
1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in1 him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Romans 3:24–26
24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Eph 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-14; Rev 14:13).

James 2:24) all say that this saving faith is accompanied by works,but then paul says he who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly is justified .read the entire passage fully and contextually:

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.



this seems like a huge contradiction.

[Kalinago]

and if by grace, no longer of works, otherwise grace becomes no longer grace; and if of works, it is no longer grace, otherwise work is no longer work.
romns 11:6

[MrMan]

@Kalinago,

I believe Jesus' sacrifice paid for our sins. But in order to receive forgiveness of sin, one has to have faith in Christ. Those who are already in Christ have their sins forgiven if they confess their sins.

There are some individuals who believe that all sins are just forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice. But universalism isn't orthodox Christian doctrine. There are also some Christians who say Christ forgave future sin, but they leave out the part about Christians confessing sin to receive forgiveness in I John.

[Kalinago]

@Kalinago,

I believe Jesus' sacrifice paid for our sins. But in order to receive forgiveness of sin, one has to have faith in Christ. Those who are already in Christ have their sins forgiven if they confess their sins.

There are some individuals who believe that all sins are just forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice. But universalism isn't orthodox Christian doctrine. There are also some Christians who say Christ forgave future sin, but they leave out the part about Christians confessing sin to receive forgiveness in I John.

Exactely,christians can pick and choose because the bible contradicts itself seemingly on what justification actually is.

There was forgiveness of sins without blood atonement in the OT.

You didn't even adress the verses I gave from hosea.

there are many more.

atonement also only meant that the Israelites could live in the land for another year,it had nothing to do with forgiveness.

[MrMan]

Hi Kalinago,

I've got a lot going on, so I am sorry if my replies are a bit short. I think you may be using a very loose translation of Hosea 14:2 that may overstate it's case. Here is the old KJV of the verse
2 Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Under the Torah, there were some things that could be taken care of by giving material things--- if you stole, returning four or five times as much back depending on what you stole. But you would probably also offer a sin offering. Judaism doesn't have a temple to do sacrifices, so they try to figure out a way to make their religion work just based on other aspects of the law.

Before the law was given through Moses, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to Him for righteousness. God had the power to consider a man just prior to the sacrifices given in the law. And even though David had committed adultery and arranged for having the man he cuckholded die in battle, he was still able to obtain forgiveness from God, even though if he'd done so through the system of the law, there was no atonement for adultery... just his own life. God retains the right to justify apart from the law.

In Old Testament times, there were times when Israelites would offer animal sacrifices to God, but they were also breaking covenant in other ways, like by worshipping idols or treating the poor badly. Even if they were following certain rituals, that does not mean God was always pleased with them.

I'll throw out another verse that mentions the idea of obeying the Son.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
(ESV)

As I recall, in Classical Greek class, that word is translated as obey, though some translations translate it as believe in that verse. Faith and faithful seem to be related concepts in New Testament Greek. The man who does not provide for his own mother has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. So for Paul, also, faith is not totally divorced from action and lifestyle.

[Kalinago]

Hi Kalinago,

I've got a lot going on, so I am sorry if my replies are a bit short. I think you may be using a very loose translation of Hosea 14:2 that may overstate it's case. Here is the old KJV of the verse
2 Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Under the Torah, there were some things that could be taken care of by giving material things--- if you stole, returning four or five times as much back depending on what you stole. But you would probably also offer a sin offering. Judaism doesn't have a temple to do sacrifices, so they try to figure out a way to make their religion work just based on other aspects of the law.

Before the law was given through Moses, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to Him for righteousness. God had the power to consider a man just prior to the sacrifices given in the law. And even though David had committed adultery and arranged for having the man he cuckholded die in battle, he was still able to obtain forgiveness from God, even though if he'd done so through the system of the law, there was no atonement for adultery... just his own life. God retains the right to justify apart from the law.

In Old Testament times, there were times when Israelites would offer animal sacrifices to God, but they were also breaking covenant in other ways, like by worshipping idols or treating the poor badly. Even if they were following certain rituals, that does not mean God was always pleased with them.

I'll throw out another verse that mentions the idea of obeying the Son.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
(ESV)

As I recall, in Classical Greek class, that word is translated as obey, though some translations translate it as believe in that verse. Faith and faithful seem to be related concepts in New Testament Greek. The man who does not provide for his own mother has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. So for Paul, also, faith is not totally divorced from action and lifestyle.

Thanks,@MrMan ,and Thanks for your reply.

what do you think of Dispensationalism and Monergism?

it seems both reformed types and Dispensationalists have their good arguments based on scripture.

[MrMan]

Hi Kalinago,

I've got a lot going on, so I am sorry if my replies are a bit short. I think you may be using a very loose translation of Hosea 14:2 that may overstate it's case. Here is the old KJV of the verse
2 Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Under the Torah, there were some things that could be taken care of by giving material things--- if you stole, returning four or five times as much back depending on what you stole. But you would probably also offer a sin offering. Judaism doesn't have a temple to do sacrifices, so they try to figure out a way to make their religion work just based on other aspects of the law.

Before the law was given through Moses, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to Him for righteousness. God had the power to consider a man just prior to the sacrifices given in the law. And even though David had committed adultery and arranged for having the man he cuckholded die in battle, he was still able to obtain forgiveness from God, even though if he'd done so through the system of the law, there was no atonement for adultery... just his own life. God retains the right to justify apart from the law.

In Old Testament times, there were times when Israelites would offer animal sacrifices to God, but they were also breaking covenant in other ways, like by worshipping idols or treating the poor badly. Even if they were following certain rituals, that does not mean God was always pleased with them.

I'll throw out another verse that mentions the idea of obeying the Son.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
(ESV)

As I recall, in Classical Greek class, that word is translated as obey, though some translations translate it as believe in that verse. Faith and faithful seem to be related concepts in New Testament Greek. The man who does not provide for his own mother has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. So for Paul, also, faith is not totally divorced from action and lifestyle.

Thanks,@MrMan ,and Thanks for your reply.

what do you think of Dispensationalism and Monergism?

it seems both reformed types and Dispensationalists have their good arguments based on scripture.

Monergism? I'm content to allow there to be a bit of mystery about these things. I wouldn't want to over define things beyond what has been revealed. God is definitely at work with HIs grace to bring people to faith. The idea that absolutely everything is predetermined, from my perspective, does not seem to align with certain parts of the Bible.

My perspective is somewhat dispenationalist, or similar to it. I believe Israel has a role to play in God's plan, though other eschatological systems can acknowledge that as well. I am not a pre-trib dispensationalist.

[Winston]

Gnostic teacher on YouTube with a wise looking beard explains below why the story of Jesus is an allegory of our higher self, and not a real physical person. Very interesting. It makes some sense. What I don't get though, is if the Romans made up Jesus and backdated him, wouldn't people at the time say that they were around in 30 AD and they didn't remember anyone named Jesus walking around in Nazareth? Or knew someone who was around back then? The mythicists don't explain that or address it. So I asked the guy in the comments section about it.

[MrMan]

Gnostic teacher on YouTube with a wise looking beard explains below why the story of Jesus is an allegory of our higher self, and not a real physical person. Very interesting. It makes some sense. What I don't get though, is if the Romans made up Jesus and backdated him, wouldn't people at the time say that they were around in 30 AD and they didn't remember anyone named Jesus walking around in Nazareth? Or knew someone who was around back then? The mythicists don't explain that or address it. So I asked the guy in the comments section about it.

This is not a great story. The bearded guy doesn't even look or sound wise. Neither does the woman.

Why would it be the case that they could take quotes from Jesus or the apostles, and use them to mean very different things from what the actual quotes mean in the context of the books they come from, and come up with something true with such a method?

[Mr. Mistoffelees]

Jesus Christ did exist. UwU at least I think so
He died for our sins and saved us. We know this to be true through word of the Bible, which comes directly from God himself. We also know this to be true if we've already accepted Jesus into our hearts

God bless our souls. =^_^=

[Winston]

Wow this Gnostic teacher with a wise beard explains why there was a Jesus but he was a member of the Gnostic Essences, according to Rosicrucian authors. And in fact Jesus' original teachings match those of the Essenes too. Very fascinating.

[Winston]

6 hour compilation of videos arguing that Jesus did exist and that the mythicist position has no foundation.

[kangarunner]

6 hour compilation of videos arguing that Jesus did exist and that the mythicist position has no foundation.

@Winston Did you know that Jesus was a compassionate and loving person to strangers? If Jesus were alive in the Philippines today he would give his last dollar to a poor person. @Winston what have you done to help others in need in the Philippines?

How much have you done to help?

[Winston]

6 hour compilation of videos arguing that Jesus did exist and that the mythicist position has no foundation.

@Winston Did you know that Jesus was a compassionate and loving person to strangers? If Jesus were alive in the Philippines today he would give his last dollar to a poor person. @Winston what have you done to help others in need in the Philippines?

How much have you done to help?

Jesus never gave money to anyone dummy. He multiplied loaves of bread to feed 5000 people remember? Feeding the poor isn't gonna do anything. You gotta teach them how to fish. Remember that saying " Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life." Why are you trolling the forum and making these asinine comments with no valid purpose? They just distract from the thread and waste time and constitute pure trash. Don't litter the forum please.

How much do you give to the poor? Why do you assume all poor people are good innocent angels? Show us the charitable contributions you made by PayPal or credit card donations. Otherwise you're a friggin hypocrite.

[Winston]

Interesting theory that Jesus was based on the life of Julius Caesar. There are many parallels between them. They even have the same initials JC. See below.



However, there is no comparison between them. Caesar won many brilliant battles on the battlefield. Jesus never won any. He was not as brilliant as Caesar. Caesar was rich, Jesus was poor. Many historical figures also knew Caesar, but none ever met Jesus except for maybe Pontius Pilate. But there is no evidence of that outside of the Bible. Hence the Christian claim that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar is plain wrong.