Would you have believed?

[lands21]

Would you have believed that Jesus was the Son of God had you lived during that time?

Would you have crucified him?

Please post your thoughts and reasons.

 

[Bohemian]

Hmmm...I can't really say. Considering most of my ancestors were Scandinavian or German, if I lived back then I'd probably be a Viking . If I was there...I probably would be independent. I'm not one to nail people to crosses, but I also don't go around following everybody who thinks he's God.

 

[tcampen]

Would you have believed that Jesus was the Son of God had you lived during that time?

Would you have crucified him?

Please post your thoughts and reasons.

If the gospels are accurate in what they depict, I would certainly believe. I would not have crucified him personally, but understand that was part of God's plan.

However, this question sort of assumes the truth of the gospels as face value. I do not believe in the supernatural events depicted therein for the lack of reason to do so. (Yes, I know the arguments.) So, if I had actually lived during the life of Jesus, I probably would not have believed Jesus was the son of God, since I find it unlikely he claimed that title for himself, nor performed supernatural miracles, or was resurrected from the dead.

I guess it all depends on what really happened 2000 years ago, which is far more a concept of faith than verifiable, historical fact.

 

[water_ripple]

The miracles would have made me believe..I too would have been astonished by His doctorine, but the miracles would've made me believe.

 

[Patiently waiting]

Well, I believe in him now. So yes, I would have then.

 

[panterapat]

The Scriptures tellus, "blessed are they who have not seen yet have believed". I think that it would be MORE difficult to believe if Jesus appeared in our own age.

 

[tcampen]

The Scriptures tellus, "blessed are they who have not seen yet have believed". I think that it would be MORE difficult to believe if Jesus appeared in our own age.

If people can believe in Jim Jones, David Koresh, Rev. Moon, or any of these types who perform no miracles whatsoever, I think the impact of walking on water, bring dead people back to life, and feeding more than 5,000 people with a basket of fish and bread would be profound. Would some not believe, sure, probably. But a vast majority would accept the truth of these events if they really happened, just as everyone accepts the fact the Twin Towers no longer exist after the 9/11 attack.

 

[Rainbow.]

I always wish i could go back in time and have met Jesus, i often wonder which day i would have liked to have been at most.
Im pretty sure it would have been the feeding of the 5,000
but then again, i also wish i could have been with him on his last day on earth to comfort him and let him no how much i love him.
Im sure at the time i wouldn't have wanted Jesus to be crucified. It's only after the event can you understand this act had to be done to fore fill the word.To have witnessed when Jesus arose days later would have been awesome though!

 

[tcampen]

It has been proposed that in the infinite parallel universes, other earths just like ours, with the same people and events, really exists, just at slightly different points in time. Scientific American had a whole expose on it, showing why this is far more likely than not to be the case. While time travel may not be possible, we may someday figure out a way to skip over to these other universes, and experience virtually any event in our world,s past or future.

Makes you wonder what Jesus would say to such a "time traveller."

 

[secretdawn]

I think believe today is harder than it was then, because there were people who saw it. Think about it, today we are ridiculed for believing what we can't see, logic seems to be the only "intelligent" way of thinking, everything that seemed wonderous 1000 years ago has been "explained" by science. We are also a very distrustful world now, not wanting to be gullible, whereas back then, those who didn't actually see what happened, were already believing in things they couldn't see, and it was the norm, so, though they would find it amazing, it was more acceptable in their minds.

 

[panterapat]

Eternity is outside of time. So God can view human events as if opening a book to any chapter He desires. This may fit into the parallel universe theory.

 

[tcampen]

Eternity is outside of time. So God can view human events as if opening a book to any chapter He desires. This may fit into the parallel universe theory.

And our lack of Free Will theory. Yikes!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I had to say yes because the only way people believe in Jesus to start with is because God reveals the truth about who He is to us. I trust God would have revealed it to me back then as He did in this day!

 

[panterapat]

Yea, the belief that God knows all, and yet we have free choice, seems to conflict with each other.

 

[Willy]

The confession that Jesus is Son of God is a confession of the church after the fact. Although we cannot know the mind of Jesus, it is highly unlikely that he thought of himself in those terms. I know if I had been in his presence I would have realized that something special and unique was happening in and through him. There is no doubt but that he had a unique relationship to the one we call God and he called Abba. To describe Jesus as "son" is not to talk about some ontological connection between him and God. It is to describe the closeness of their relationship. The church claims that indeed he had a unique connection to God. We are not making a claim that he is somehow biologically connected to God.

 

[Rainbow.]

The confession that Jesus is Son of God is a confession of the church after the fact. Although we cannot know the mind of Jesus, it is highly unlikely that he thought of himself in those terms. I know if I had been in his presence I would have realized that something special and unique was happening in and through him. There is no doubt but that he had a unique relationship to the one we call God and he called Abba. To describe Jesus as "son" is not to talk about some ontological connection between him and God. It is to describe the closeness of their relationship. The church claims that indeed he had a unique connection to God. We are not making a claim that he is somehow biologically connected to God.

So as he was born to a virgin how do you explain his parentage..or do you not hold that belief
Im asking that in a nice way, not sarcastically.

 

[Willy]

The virginal conception narratives (found only in Matthew and Luke) are the early church's attempt to maintain the uniqueness of Jesus' origins. Mark, the earliest gospel written, had no virginal conception story. Then Matthew and Luke reflect on where Jesus came from in terms of his birth (virginal conception story). Then John takes us back to see Jesus as having his origins before creation. The evolution in thought is quite fascinating.

 

[MattMMMan17]

The virginal conception narratives (found only in Matthew and Luke) are the early church's attempt to maintain the uniqueness of Jesus' origins. Mark, the earliest gospel written, had no virginal conception story. Then Matthew and Luke reflect on where Jesus came from in terms of his birth (virginal conception story). Then John takes us back to see Jesus as having his origins before creation. The evolution in thought is quite fascinating.

It's interesting to note, that of all of the apostles, it was Luke, the doctor, who told us of the virgin birth. Something completely above human logic or reason. Not contradictory, but above.

The differences between the 4 gospels make complete sense when you take into account for whom that each was written.

Oh, and my response to the OP question. No I would not have believed. I wish I could honestly say I would, but I just wouldn't. The first skeptics were the apostles themselves. Those who spent THREE YEARS with the Son of God, doubted after his death. Even when they heard of his body being missing from the guarded tomb, they first brushed it off as a woman's tale, because well, "you know how women are" sort of thing. Thomas himself doubted for an entire WEEK. Today's skeptics are nothing special, when you consider who the first ones were.

 

[Shekinahs]

Blessings,

I'm not sure. I would like to believe I would but hundreds of people did not believe him when he was here and I have to ask myself what would make me any different. Jesus did not "fit" into the messiah plan that was accepted of the day. There were so many questions concerning his authority and the arguments made valid points. I would have been like a lot of people just torn on wondering could this really be the Messiah. The fear of following a false prophet would have been my greatest hangup. Honestly, I would have believed he was highly favored of God. But I would be asking me all the time "could he REALLY be the Messiah right here in flesh and blood". Takes a lot of faith to believe this human being that is flesh and blood just like you and that bleeds like you is truly God in flesh. I'm not sure what I would have done. The best I can say is that the same spirit I feel of Jesus today I would have felt back then and the same belief I have in the spirit I would have had back then.

~ShekinahMoon~