A Catholic told me that Jesus is the Son of God, a second person in a Trinity of God who is eternally begotten by the Father, who incarnated to save us from our sins, was born of a virgin, did many miracles, and resurrected three days after his death.
A Mormon told me Jesus is the literal Son of God and Mary, the first born of Elohim and a Heavenly Mother, who came to show us the power of Elohim and died for our sins and rising three days later to be an exalted deity over us in a three way Godhead and eventually made his way from Israel to America where he taught the Native Americans.
A Jehovah's Witness told me that Jesus is the Archangel Michael, the firstborn of Jehovah, who became the Christ at his baptism and died on an upright stake and that his body re-materialized three days after his death in contrast to the Catholic and Mormon doctrine that he resurrected.
A Muslims told me that Jesus was only a prophet sent by Allah to be born of a virgin and to preach the Injil and that in fact he did not die at all, but was raised by Allah into heaven.
A Unitarian told me that Jesus was simply a good teacher who had good ideas about love and forgiveness, and that instead of any miracles his death was simply an example for us all to love.
A Jew told me Jesus was a deceiver and false messiah who is currently boiling in excrement.
An Atheist told me Jesus never even existed but was made up by the Romans to control the slave population through a fringe form of Judaism.
I don't get it, who is the real Jesus? Who was he!? Everybody has told me such different things!!!?? I need help.
A Hindu told me that Jesus was an avatar of the deity Vishnu who came to restore Dharma through love and forgiveness.
A Buddhist told me Jesus was a Bodhisattva who united his mind to the mind of the Buddha through love.
I really don't get it guys. :( Who was he!!!!!!??????
Owen Gomez
Sounds about right
Andrew Martin
This one. Christians perverted the original message of Jesus (A.S.) because of false prophets like Paul.
Hudson Phillips
This is not just the beliefs of Catholics, but all Christians who believe in the nicene creed. Orthodox and Protestants agree with Catholics The Mormons in certain specific cases take old Christian beliefs way too literally, as is the case here (there are also examples of the opposite, where they take them too spiritually, but that's not the case here). Mormonism is a corruption of the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, believing that a God came to Earth and had sex with Mary to conceive him. Look at the Mormon teachings, then reaxamine it next to the Nicene teaching, and you can see where the corruption comes from. They still believe vaguely that Jesus is part of a three person Godhead and the Son of the Father who came to Earth to absolve us of sins. However, you should take the traditional view rather than the Mormon view, as every witness (the three and eight witnesses of the book of Mormon) all abandoned Joseph Smith's LDS and started their own Church Read the birth narratives and the resurrection narratives. Jesus is proclaimed the Christ long before his baptism, and he has holes in his hands to show that he is the same man that died on the cross (not a recreation). Islam believes that the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are the word of God. Islam also says that the word of God cannot be corrupted. Islam also believes that their God is our God. So you ask them if they believe in the trinity and the gospel, and they say our God is paganism and the Gospel that teaches it was corrupted. It's not an intellectual religion, this contradiction destroys all their beliefs. Jesus proclaimed himself to be the messiah and incarnate God. He couldn't be just a nice teacher, he must either be what he said he was, or a madman, or a conman. He was clearly not mad, as he was very wise and calm. He was no conman, as he never gained anything from his ministry. Jews and Christians both proclaim themselves inheritors of the Old Testament religion. Jews, however, reject the belief that God is a plurality of persons and that he can incarnate. This goes against the many times God is referred to as Elohim and incarnates on Earth as man. Reading the book of Isaiah especially, you can see clear Christian viewpoints expressed. Reading of Philo of Alexandria and the Hellenic Jews, you can see the precursors to many Christian schools of thought. The Christians inherited the Old Testament religion of God, the Jews inherited the corrupt Pharisaical doctrines Jesus preached against
Nathan Adams
The proof that Jesus existed is staggering, no other figure in history ever had such an explosion of diverse sources proclaiming his existence. There is more proof Jesus existed than proof Julius Caesar existed. The "Romans invented Christianity" hypothesis is absurd on it's face when you see how Romans treated Christians, and then how they came to accept it. (Why would they invent a religion then persecute people for following it? Then why would an emperor convert to that religion?) That's not Hindu doctrine. Like I said, the proof Jesus existed is staggering. He then became the most popular religious figure to ever exist. Pre-Christian religions then had to retroactively add Jesus to their beliefs. That's one theory of who he is, but ultimately Hindus have no doctrine on him. It's absurd to say that the incarnation of one of many gods would proclaim monotheism as Jesus did Similar to Hinduism above, that's not Buddhist doctrine it's just something some Buddhists came up with to add this guy to their religion. It's weird that Jesus never ever proclaimed anything resembling Buddhism aside from a few simple moral precepts. There is no constant reincarnation, there is no karma, and there is no nirvana in Jesus's philosophy. Most damning of all, there is no Buddha. Why would a Bodhisattva proclaim a bunch of Old Testament prophets but never even mention Buddha?
Get yourself a Bible, preferably one with a more literal translation not to rocked by denominational bias (the New English Translation is pretty good), read it (with special emphasis on the Prophets and the Gospels), then read some books on church history alongside some of the church fathers to see what people living right after Christ believed. It will cure you of any kind of retroactive mumbo-jumbo about how actually Jesus believed this [completely radical belief never mentioned in the Bible]
Leo Martinez
Why don't you read the Gospels written by eyewitness or people who knew eyewitness and decide for yourself instead of comparing it to stuff written by Muhammad 600 years later or Joseph Smith 1800 years later? Give it a try.
Owen Rogers
Ah, on cue, that's been debunked. Always read into your information Muslim.
Chase Barnes
Also the whole "the bible has been corrupted" would invalidate Islam as well.
JW are part of cult, like the mormons are to freemasonry. Watching and Watching marching to zion invidio.us/watch?v=typ2pl2L47k There is soo much literature on Jesus beyond the bible that confirms the bible, atheists won't accept God because of personal reasons (i would know, since i used to be one). Try the liturature of the group of poeple who are followers of Christ, Christians.
That brings up the age old question: Can a Christian be unbiased about Jesus?
Blake Kelly
No person can be truly unbiased about Jesus, he’s too divisive. That being said, there’s a lot more evidence to back up the Christian position
Connor Anderson
Oh I agree with you on that, but I know I can't be unbiased about Jesus. I'd be a terrible source for information about my beloved lord and master.
Bentley Richardson
Depends on what you mean by unbiased. If you believe that Christians can distort what Jesus teaches, then you must know that Satan can influence ideologies to distort opposing views of Jesus.
If you take the New Ager's or the Atheist's perceptive of Jesus, then you should know how atheism and New Age religion connect to satanism. No one knows Jesus, or Christianity like Christians.
And now ask yourself. What religion did Jesus create? That means that religion is the one right about them. Another argument, how could Mormons, witness etc know about jesus 1700 years later? Our best guess would be the religion that Jesus Himself founded and that said the same thing about Him since the year 30 to 2018.
Dominic Long
Freemasonry became popularized in the 1700s, the exact same time that Joseph smith wrote the supposed "other testimony" of Jesus. Mormonism teaches self-goodhood/ becoming Gods, which the bible speaks against.
It sounds confusing OP, i know, but if you read the bible and then compare what others are saying you'll see they're adding on or changing what originally happened.
The first one is accurate. Mormons and JW's doctrine is shaky at best, they don't even roll with the Trinity so certainly by basic standards they are not strictly Christian, although their dogma obviously borrows heavily from us. And everyone else you mentioned can't even be called Christian with a straight face (Muslims? Hindus???).
In terms of all the other faiths except atheism they generally will have a certain opinion regarding the Lord since they want you to either discount him or think he's some sort of hippie guru that is "cool" so that you can convert to them. They are operating on a certain line regarding that, you can't say "Christ is Lord" and then say "muh Mohammed". You have to keep that in line.
As far as the atheist goes, since he follows a line that is both anti-faith and anti-Christian, he will make things up saying that there is no historical record of Christ. This is of course insane. There are historical records of the people who persecuted Christ. There are increasing references from pagans of the era who mention Christians, more every decade. Just recently the temple where the First Council of Nicaea was found. Polycarp was a indisputable historical figure, who was trained by an apostle (who himself would have had to have been historical), and thus apostles would have had to been under the wing of Jesus to have that kind of situation develop for them. And so on and so on. The evidence for the atheist position is probably the most flimsy of all since that can only be supported by evidence, which is in our favor. They can only then respond by saying He wasn't supernatural (which is bizarre given His sudden and extreme impact), or that even if all that was true that they basically hate God/Jesus in actuality because it impinges on their secular modern society in ways they don't feel comfortable over or because of a troubled childhood that they don't feel had enough divine intercession on, or something beyond a rational point that is easily dealt with.
Even if the eye witness of Christ lied it wouldn't mean the others were right. In fact it would mean we lost absolutely every information about who He was, making all the other opinions even less founded. They'd be no more than lucky guesses.
Matthew Rivera
PS: the historical Jesus of Nazareth was the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages. He is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
This is the True Faith no matter what everyone one else (600 years+ after Christ lol) says.
