The Case for the Historical Christ


Well-known member
In effect, I did testify that you have to experience the relationship with the Lord in order for you to know Him.

The fact that you keep seeing Christianity as a religion, and there are false prophets that had come in to make many believers religious, proves your personal research is lacking.

Religion is what man can do but the Good News in Jesus Christ is what He has done in having saved you for all who believe in Him, and can do for you, to be free from the domination of sin in your life & help you to follow Him so that you may be fruitful & your joy full.

It is good that you know Jesus is the Truth. It is by Him can all others be measured as to whether it be of the truth or a lie.

So I do hope in the Lord that the Father will one day reveal Jesus Christ to you in such a way to believe in Him to be saved.
Same to you, buddy.

Thank you for sharing.


Well-known member
Same to you, buddy.
Thanks to Jesus Christ, I still believe in Jesus Christ in spite of it all. Jesus is the truth in these latter days when churches & believers are falling away.

I just hope to see you one day in Heaven by the grace of God & His help in coming to & believing in Jesus Christ to be saved.


Active member
I think that the "Historical Jesus" is an exciting topic. Mainly I would want to check what happened with the miracles if I could time travel.

I would also like to get interviews and commentaries from the OT prophets on their Messianic resurrection prophecies, like on how specifically they arrived at their prophecies.

No bystanders would have seen the virginal conception by Mary. It's curious then that about 170 years later the story circulated among Jews about her having intercourse with a soldier named Pandera. The origin of that Ben Pandera story is not clearly known, although Origen postulated an Apologetic explanation.

There is also a longstanding tradition in Christianity that the Virgin Mary not only conceived as a virgin, bit also that she was a virgin in her birthgiving. The first narrative that comes to mind where the birth itself was miraculous was in the Ascension of Isaiah, a Christian apocryphal text wherein Jesus left Mary's womb with her birth canal unmarred. I am not sure offhand if the virginal birthgiving teaching is Biblical or implied by the Bible.

Then after Jesus' infancy narrative, his life until he meets John the Baptist is almost unnarrated in the Bible except for the time when he left his parents to talk to the Temple elders in his adolescence. So there is kind of an open question whether he had family background related to a specific sect or group of the Jews, like the Maccabbees or the priestly Onias dynasty, or the pharisees at large, or a clan in Nazareth.

Jesus spent time preaching and doing public miracles, but usually the public miracles seem of a nature that would be hard to convince modern skeptics. They might see Him as someone like modern charismatic faith healers whom mainstream American Christians don't put much stock in.

Even if the healing of Lazarus happened rather close to what the story said, it could be hard for a modern skeptical person to prove whether it was or was not Jesus who raised Lazarus, whether Lazarus healed and recovered on his own, or whether Lazarus faked his illness to con believers as part of a scam.

With some miracles like the Transfiguration, the walking on water, and some Resurrection appearances by Jesus, we are talking about events witnessed by a handful of people or up to about a dozen. In that case, if you time traveled and interviewed the apostles, you could get at least a little sense of their sincerity. And being apostles, they would probably come off as sincere. But hypothetically you could also get versions of narratives that conflicted in details with the gospels' versions of those major miracle events. This is because we don't have individual accounts from every one of the apostles. Imagine for instance if the apostle Thaddaeus and a few others said that they were standing in the room on Day 1 of the Resurrection and that he didn't see Jesus physically and directly but just pictured Jesus being there instead.

Alternately, imagine if you were with the apostles on Day 9 of the resurrection and the 11 apostles there all said that they saw Jesus, but you looked and didn't see Him. There seems to be a subtle "debate" so to speak among Christian theologians on whether based on the Biblical account Jesus could be seen objectively in His appearances, like whether He would show up on a camera.