[citation][nom]liveonc[/nom]Please don't confuse what The Messiah Jesus Christ son of Mary said, & what The Church later chose to say he said. Two different things.[/citation]
First, there is no "THE CHURCH", like it's a clandestine organization trying to influence outcomes of civilization, especially at the turn of the century, that would have the organization to develop a massive literary campaign of the magnitude you are insinuating happened. The only organizations who had those kind of resources at that time were the Jewish religious organization and the Roman Government.
Second, You cannot prove He did not say those things. You cannot prove that anything He said was added later. Just because you think that, does not make that true. Just because you don't want to believe that He said that is not substantial enough proof to say He didn't say those things. You cannot present a manuscript where he said one thing and then another later manuscript that says the same thing except words were added. Besides, by definition, being the Messiah is being God. So you are contradicting yourself. And that does not disprove that he rose from the dead, and that, besides the numerous accusations that the religious leaders made against him weren't, "Stop saying that because you are causing a disturbance." proves that He claimed to be and is God. Where is it recorded that any religious leader said, "Stop that because you are going to cause the Romans to come down on us.", nor is there anything even close to that. No where in the Bible. The accusations were "You make yourself out to be God." So, all the times where Jesus claimed to be God, which is very frequently, is all made up while there is not one instance where they said anything about being concerned about how the Romans are going to react. So your claim doesn't hold water.
That, on top of the fact that there are over 22,000 manuscripts saying that He said what He said. Many, many times more manuscripts than any other documents from that period that are deemed to be historically accurate. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote Annals of Imperial Romein 115 A.D. We have one copy of the first six books and that is a copy made in 850 A.D., 735 years later. Are you going to say that that book is not accurate? After all, it had over 700 years to be altered. Yet, it is deemed to be completely historically accurate. Meanwhile, we have copies of the Gospels (which are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, since many here probably don't know that), the book of Acts, Pauls letters, and the book of Hebrews that date as early as the first century, the time that most of those who make the claims of Jesus being God lived and could say that what was being written about Jesus was false. So, a 750 year old copy is accurate, but a 80 year copy, dating to within 100 years of when it was first written, the manuscript the Bible is derived from, is not? Utterly crazy to believe that.
Facebook
Twitter