If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

[PghPanther]

If Jesus (being the co-creator of all reality) as some Christians claim would have provided a few general hygiene guidelines to the masses then some of them might have lived long enough to have accepted him as their personal savior and found the gift of eternal life.......

That would have a definite impact on the spiritual well being of the masses to have some live long enough to find salvation.

Didn't he know that?

[tam]

Peace to you PGH.

Useful to whom?

To those who want to know His Father, to know the Way to His Father, to know the requirements of His Father, to those who want to know Christ and the truth came to bear witness TO... to those who want to be loved and known by Him and His Father, to those who wish to receive the gift of life, then everything He said and did was useful.

To anyone uninterested into those things, then what He said may not be useful to them.


But if He is who He is claimed to be (a condition of the OP) - the Son of God; the Truth; the Way and the Life; the King; the Anointed One... etc - then everything that He taught is useful, and true. At least to anyone who wishes to know His Father, to know truth, to be part of them and their Kingdom, to receive the gift of holy spirit and eternal life.



**

One might ask why He did not teach pure science instead? You can't teach people what they cannot yet bear; what they cannot yet grasp. His knowledge of science - if He is who He is claimed to be - is far beyond our own. But we can't measure the spiritual yet - we can't even detect it yet with our tools; but it is the spiritual that He said is what matters.

So He taught what mattered for us to have life (eternal), and He answered questions that people brought to Him, and He taught as the people could handle at the time.

But that does not mean He did not teach scientific things; it just means that some of those things had to be communicated in a way in which all people from any time period could grasp.

For instance, He taught that it is power (energy) in Him that went out of Him when He healed that woman. But He did not teach the scientific details of that. We still haven't caught up to that, and unless it is observed scientifically, it will be discounted and dismissed.

I will use the following as an example of what I mean, not as an example of something that I can prove:

The term "putting on and taking off the flesh" is something that Paul referred to, when he spoke about what would happen when we were 'caught up' with Christ in the sky and 'changed in a twinkling'. Putting off this flesh (this body), and putting on the new body (the spiritual body). These sound like 'religious terms', but that is how Paul was able to describe something that we don't yet have a scientific words to describe. Because we have not yet observed this using scientific studies; etc.

It is how my Lord and the angels move in between the spiritual and the physical - putting on and taking off the flesh.

Although we do have some scientific backing in understanding how that might be possible, in the sense of matter to energy; but that is incomplete. Also standing wave theory touches a bit on the possibility of this. But that is fairly new as well.


My point is, that unless the science that my Lord taught is proven or scientifically observed in the world at the time it is being taught, it is unlikely to be accepted; because it is unlikely to be understood.



In any case, the second part of my post has to do with possibility and science, and would probably make for a better discussion than a debate.

The first part of my post is my answer to the OP.




Peace to you Z!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Why is it then that there is so much conflict over who he is.......what he claims to be.....and what he is suppose to reveal ....not among the secure world.............but among believers themselves?

Because not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him.

They know OF Him. They know what their religion teaches ABOUT Him. They know what doctrines state ABOUT Him. But that is not the same as KNOWING Him.

It is not even the same as listening to Him.

Because not all who claim to be listening to Him are actually listening to Him. Some listen to their pastors; some listen to their religion and its doctrines on Him, some listen to what others say, some rely upon their own interpretations.



That being said, the fact that there are discrepancies and even outright conflict between those who profess to believe in Christ, and between various sects of Christianity does not change what I wrote. Everything He said is useful to those who WANT to know Him and His Father; etc (as stated in my original post).

But people get to choose who they listen to, and they get to choose what they do with what they hear, from whomever they hear it. The words my Lord spoke are no less useful just because there are some - or even many - who choose not to listen to Him.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by tam]


Hi tam.
This is an interesting exchange:

Why is it then that there is so much conflict over who he is.......what he claims to be.....and what he is suppose to reveal ....not among the secure world.............but among believers themselves?

Because not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him.

Hi tam, interesting claim that you make there.

So, I have to ask you.. Do you just CLAIM to know him or ACTUALLY know Him?
How can we tell the difference between who you claim are just claiming to know Him, and your claims to know Him?

There seems to be a whole lotta CLAIMS flying around here!

[tam]

[Replying to post 23 by Blastcat]

Hi Blastcat, and peace to you.


I actually did not make a claim in that post about myself.

But you could probably guess my claim was FALSE, if I claimed to know Christ, but turned around and said/did things that are in conflict with what He said and did and taught; while I am also claiming that these conflicting things are what He likes/wants. For instance, if the RCC claimed that Christ wanted them to burn heretics at the stake - then I would have to conclude that those who made that claim and did those things did not ACTUALLY know Christ, but only CLAIMED that they know Christ.



But either way - whether the claim is true or false - one is not supposed to be listening to those who know Christ (or claim to know Christ). One is supposed to be listening to Christ.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by tam]


Hi tam.

Is it from Jerry Lee Lewis, or Christ, or someone else?

But you could probably guess my claim was FALSE, if I claimed to know Christ, but turned around and said/did things that are in conflict with what He said and did and taught; while I am also claiming that these conflicting things are what He likes/wants.

It's not just because someone can be CONSISTENT about what they say and do that it means what they CLAIM is TRUE.... Your claims concerning Christ might match up with your ACTIONS, and STILL be false claims, tam.

You might be in favor of LOVE.. well WHO ISN'T?
But that doesn't mean this proves your CHRIST CLAIMS.

It just proves that you fit in with the OTHER 8 billion people on the planet who generally FAVOR love. Welcome to the club, tam. Doesn't make your claims true, OR make your words especially GOD LIKE.

For instance, if the RCC claimed that Christ wanted them to burn heretics at the stake - then I would have to conclude that those who made that claim and did those things did not ACTUALLY know Christ, but only CLAIMED that they know Christ.

And they might claim that they DO, and that you DON'T.

So, who wins.... you ARM WRESTLE?...
How is anyone going to decide who knows the ACTUAL Christ, or if indeed the Christ is an actual GOD? We HAVE a lot of claims.

There's a whole lotta claimin' goin' on.

But either way - whether the claim is true or false - one is not supposed to be listening to those who know Christ (or claim to know Christ). One is supposed to be listening to Christ.

But there are those who claim to get THAT info from Christ. Who is telling us that "one is supposed to be listening to Christ"?

Says WHO , tam?
And where did you GET that info?

[tam]

[Replying to post 24 by tam]


Hi tam.

Is it from Jerry Lee Lewis, or Christ, or someone else?

I don't understand your question.

But you could probably guess my claim was FALSE, if I claimed to know Christ, but turned around and said/did things that are in conflict with what He said and did and taught; while I am also claiming that these conflicting things are what He likes/wants.

It's not just because someone can be CONSISTENT about what they say and do that it means what they CLAIM is TRUE.... Your claims concerning Christ might match up with your ACTIONS, and STILL be false claims, tam.

You might be in favor of LOVE.. well WHO ISN'T?
But that doesn't mean this proves your CHRIST CLAIMS.

It just proves that you fit in with the OTHER 8 billion people on the planet who generally FAVOR love. Welcome to the club, tam. Doesn't make your claims true, OR make your words especially GOD LIKE.

I never mentioned consistency between what a person says and what a person does. That doesn't make something true.

One cannot claim to know Christ and then turn around and teach/do something that is in conflict with Him.

The whole point of the example is that Christ did not teach such things as burning people at the stake. He taught - by word and by deed - the exact opposite. So if someone is burning others at the stake, and claiming that this is approved by Christ and God, then that person does not know Christ OR God.


Christ's own words - even if all people have to go by is what He is written to have said and done - show this.


If someone can show where Christ said that a person should curse their enemies, kill their enemies, persecute their enemies, burn their enemies at the stake, condemn and judge their enemies, act as judge, jury and executioner of their enemies, etc, etc.... perhaps even show where Christ killed and harmed and cursed HIS enemies... then there might be an issue.

But Christ taught and did EXACTLY OPPOSITE of this.


So this should be pretty basic. Except that men choose to put their faith in other men, looking at men, religion, doctrines, tradition, etc... for truth about what God wants, instead of looking at Christ.

For instance, if the RCC claimed that Christ wanted them to burn heretics at the stake - then I would have to conclude that those who made that claim and did those things did not ACTUALLY know Christ, but only CLAIMED that they know Christ.

And they might claim that they DO, and that you DON'T.

Then show where I am actually in conflict with Christ.

Should be simple enough if it is true.

So, who wins.... you ARM WRESTLE?...

Nope. Simply test against Christ - His words, His teachings, His deeds.

But either way - whether the claim is true or false - one is not supposed to be listening to those who know Christ (or claim to know Christ). One is supposed to be listening to Christ.

But there are those who claim to get THAT info from Christ. Who is telling us that "one is supposed to be listening to Christ"?

God. Even according to what is written. Most of those who claim to be believers, claim also to be listening to that holy book. And in that book, it is written in more than one spot, and in more than one way:


"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 22 by tam]

Because not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him.

They know OF Him. They know what their religion teaches ABOUT Him. They know what doctrines state ABOUT Him. But that is not the same as KNOWING Him.

It is not even the same as listening to Him.

Because not all who claim to be listening to Him are actually listening to Him. Some listen to their pastors; some listen to their religion and its doctrines on Him, some listen to what others say, some rely upon their own interpretations.

"Because not everyone who claims to know him actually does know him." -- tam

Apparently then it is entirely possible for many individuals, perhaps even MOST individuals, who fully believe with all devotion that they know and have a relationship with Jesus, to be entirely WRONG in one of their most profoundly held beliefs. And worse yet, they can be entirely unaware of this. Does the fact that your ARE aware that it is possible to believe oneself to be in a relationship with Jesus and be entirely wrong in that belief, ever give YOU any reason for worry?

That being said, the fact that there are discrepancies and even outright conflict between those who profess to believe in Christ, and between various sects of Christianity does not change what I wrote. Everything He said is useful to those who WANT to know Him and His Father; etc (as stated in my original post).

But people get to choose who they listen to, and they get to choose what they do with what they hear, from whomever they hear it. The words my Lord spoke are no less useful just because there are some - or even many - who choose not to listen to Him.

"Everything He said is useful to those who WANT to know Him and His Father;" -- tam

The problem here is, everything that it is said that he said was actually said by others. Jesus wrote nothing himself and and so there is no direct record of what Jesus actually taught and actually believed. There is a gap of several decades between the historical Yeshua, and the later individuals who wrote the Gospels which made the claims about what Jesus said and what he believed.

For example, Chapter 14 verse 23 of the Gospel of John begins:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.---

For the sake of brevity I will not post the entire passage. Because Jesus is depicted here in a quote that goes on unbroken through the end of Chapter 14, right on through the entire twenty seven verses of chapter 15, and finally concludes with verse 16 of chapter 16. Fifty three verses of the unbroken "words of Jesus." Many people would consider themselves a biblical scholar for commiting the entire fifty three verses to memory, with the words right there in front of them, and by taking however much time was needed to memorize the whole passage without error. Yet we are to understand that the author of Gospel John could recite this entire passage, and many more just like it which are contained in the Gospel of John, VERBATIM and without error, and with no Gospel in front of HIM, some sixty to seventy years after Jesus was executed. This is neither reasonable nor is obvious and undeniable. It is beyond all reason and practicality. Such a feat of inerrant accuracy could only be explained as a genuine miracle of God. Which Christians of course DO proclaim that these works are. (We know it to be true because it is contained in the Word of God, and we know it to be the Word of God because we know it to be true.) But that is not a debatable position. That is simply applied faith.

So when you use the phrase "Everything He said," you are really talking about your faith that what other people said that he said long after Jesus was dead are the actual word of Jesus himself. And you assume as a matter of questioned faith that what THEY said he said, represents the inerrant and unerring "words of Jesus," as contained in the inerrant and unerring "Word of God."

Which would certainly serve to support your claim that "not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him."

[tam]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

An addition to my post, if I may, just in case I am misunderstood:


Some misunderstandings in the meaning of things that Christ taught/teaches... does not mean that one does not know Him. One might still be learning; and He will teach them.


24 students can listen to the same teacher, and not all be at the same level of understanding at the same time.


The example that I gave was extreme for a reason.

Bless, and do not cures; do good to those who harm you... is exactly opposite of... round em up and burn em at the stake.


Someone having trouble blessing those who are cursing them... but who knows that he is supposed to bless those who curse him and so tries and does this out of love for Christ; is still listening to Christ.

Someone who has decided that it is okay to curse those who curse him, instead of listening to Christ - well, that person is listening to someone else OVER Christ.




Not that the point is to know the one who knows Christ. It is not about US.

The point is to know Christ. It is about HIM.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by tam]


Hi tam.
This is an interesting exchange:

Why is it then that there is so much conflict over who he is.......what he claims to be.....and what he is suppose to reveal ....not among the secure world.............but among believers themselves?

Because not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him.

Hi tam, interesting claim that you make there.

So, I have to ask you.. Do you just CLAIM to know him or ACTUALLY know Him?
How can we tell the difference between who you claim are just claiming to know Him, and your claims to know Him?

There seems to be a whole lotta CLAIMS flying around here!

This is a re-tread of very old ground. I remember asking tam this very question, and if I recall correctly, I got something along the lines of "Don't listen to me, listen to Christ" (which I'm betting she's answered with to you on this thread, I haven't as of the time of writing this reply, read her reply).
Long story short, neither tam nor anyone else can provide for us any evidence to show us which of them (if any) are actually hearing the real McCoy (if there even is a real McCoy to hear at all).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

perhaps even show where Christ killed and harmed and cursed HIS enemies

The moneylenders at the temple? Where Christ drove them out with a whip? That fits the criteria of violence

Then show where I am actually in conflict with Christ.

You know as well as I do that this can't be done. Not because you are 'actually' not in conflict...but because you'll accept NOTHING of what any of the rest of us present. Should we ever come up with something that shows you to be in conflict, you'll retreat and say "The Christ that I hear says otherwise", and given that you hear this Christ and we don't, well then...what's to be done?
At this point, I like to call it as it is. tam speaks about two Christs. The Christ that is talked about in the Bible. This Christ is secondary, lesser in importance and authority, to this other Christ that she and she alone apparently hears. If a non-believer points out some inconsistency about Christ, it can only ever be about the first Christ, the Biblical Christ and not the one she claims to hear.
This way, tam's belief is safe.