What Jesus Said

[William]

Rule of thumb re scriptural statements about biblical Jesus.

IF;
any such statement contradicts or is otherwise inconsistent with what biblical Jesus stated about himself,
THEN;
regardless that it is 'in the bible', biblical Jesus' statements about himself, take precedence over any other biblical statements about him.

Rule of Thumb = a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on practice rather than theory.

Take Precedence = to be more important (than something else)

Q: Is there any honest reason why Christians and others should not apply this rule of thumb in relation to statements biblical Jesus makes about himself when other biblical statements about Jesus contradict or are otherwise inconsistent with those statements biblical Jesus makes about himself?

[iow]
Are there any honest reasons why Christians [and others] should not apply this rule of thumb in relation to things said in the bible about biblical Jesus, whenever there are contradictions and inconsistencies.

[Examples of such contradictions and inconsistencies will no doubt follow as the thread proceeds. The focus of the thread is specific to what biblical Jesus states about himself and the above rule of thumb.]

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #77]

It appears to me that, like Peter, you are confused as to the role of the Messiah, as per biblical Jesus claim that he was that person.

A - How so? What do you think I am confused about as to the role of the Messiah (and please back up your statement with some kind of evidence)?

B - I think you should directly address the statement instead of trying to turn it around on me:

You said:

My point in return was that Jesus was going along with what people thought. What Peter thought. What the woman at the well thought.
What they thought about Jesus was not necessarily what Jesus thought about himself. - William

I responded:

He confirmed that it was when He said:

a) For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven

and

b) I who speak to you am He. (the Messiah/Christ)

Otherwise:

You are saying that Christ - the Truth - lied to His apostles and to the woman at the well. He deceived them instead of speaking truth to them. He would even have been telling Peter that the Father lied (since He told Peter that the Father is the One who revealed that to him).

**

Peter was expecting someone different re the Messiah. Perhaps a Warrior King sent by The Father to eliminate the oppressive Romans and the rich folks hold over the poor.

What someone expected from the Messiah does not change the fact that Christ confirmed that He was indeed that Messiah promised to come. He even outright TOLD the woman at the well that He is the Messiah who was coming to explain everything to them.

You have been taught that Jesus is someone who you should worship unquestionably, and that he alone represents "Christ".

I have been taught (by God) to love and listen to His Son. His Son always gave praise and glory to His Father and said to worship the Father. I have been taught many other things by that Son as well.

God's Son though IS the Christ (as that Son states and confirms Himself).

The Christ = The Anointed One = Jaheshua (the Chosen One of JAH).

Christians (the word being derived from Christ) are also anointed ones (anointed with holy spirit), and are members of the Body of Christ, but they are not THE Christ, Himself. Agreed?

The idea of worshipping a savior-image in the figure of a human being, is most definitely coming from Greek and Roman cultural influences and is what Christianity stems from, through the teachings of its priesthood,

You keep bringing this up and I keep bypassing it, because it has nothing to do with me or my faith or anything I have said.

and is why the bible cannot be trusted as a wholly truthful set of documents. One requires wisdom and truthfulness to discern that this is the case, otherwise one argues for everything in the bible as representing The Word of God, something neither the Christian books nor the books of the Tanakh can truthfully lay claim to, due to the priests and their tampering.

William, you are just repeating yourself word for word from a couple posts back, and I already responded a couple of posts back:

I have never suggested that the bible is the Word of God. (As for there being a savior, that came from the beginning, before Christ came to earth as a man, and Israel had been looking forward to the Messiah).

But Christ is the Word of God.

I do agree with you that one requires wisdom and truthfulness to discern what is true (or not), but in both cases, Wisdom (Proverbs 8) and Truth (John 14:6; John 8:32) are both Christ.

This is why you cannot appreciate the truth of my words regarding The Christ being more than just one individual.

THE Christ is one individual.

This is your thread with your rule of thumb, but you seem to be the only one not following the rule of thumb that you came up with. So tell me where does Christ say that THE CHRIST is more than one individual.

This is like that meme you posted a while back, where it claimed that Christ said something like "I didn't say I was returning, I said the Christ was returning". That meme was indeed false - even according to your own rule of thumb - because Christ did indeed state that HE would be returning.

Simple.

But you argued against that too, lol.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36093

Jesus consistently said of his followers to be like him, do like him. Love one another. etc et al.

Indeed. (in fact we discussed that in the thread linked above)

This is why I wrote that The Christ is not an individual person...rather It is a Spirit Personality... a gathered force of Like-Minded persona.

But THE Christ (The Messiah who was promised to come) IS an individual person.

THE = One.

AN = one of more than one


Perhaps you could define what you mean by "spirit personality"?

You asked for and I provided scriptural support, and then you falsely accused me of not providing that evidence, even that I had done.

As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love?.

And connect that with;

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This also was responded to multiple posts back.

The reason biblical Jesus admonished that those who claim to follow him, BE LIKE him, has to do with changing the world to make it a better place. Building The Fathers Kingdom over the face of the Earth.

That is why I wrote The Christ is neither deceiving, nor being deceived, should The Father choose to change His mind and not send Jesus back in a manner that every eye will see.

There is nothing deceptive in Jesus coming back under the radar and tweaking the game from within, if in doing so the result is the eventual building of The Fathers Kingdom over the face of the Earth.

And this is from about three posts back, and I responded to it as well back then.

You're just repeating your claims and ignoring the response that have already been given. I suppose that is an effective way of avoiding a point (or avoiding seeing a point), but it does make it difficult to have a coherent and straightforward discussion.

You - on the other hand, appear to believe that nothing can be done until Jesus returns 'in all his glory.' Have you ever considered the possibility that this teaching is false and was invented and used by the priesthood to disengage folk from the idea that they had been given a powerful means in which to free themselves from the deceptive spell they are under?

I posted Christ's words on the matter of His return and what He does and what He believed would happen in the world in the meantime, in the previous posts; I see no need to repeat them.



Peace again.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #81]

Christians (the word being derived from Christ) are also anointed ones (anointed with holy spirit), and are members of the Body of Christ, but they are not THE Christ, Himself. Agreed?

I do not know what you mean by "Christians" as I have seen you write that many people calling themselves Christians, are NOT "Christians".

But in the spirit of your question, I have been arguing that the anointed ones are the same re "This is why I wrote that The Christ is not an individual person...rather It is a Spirit Personality... a gathered force of Like-Minded persona."

The Anointed are The Christ, is the point I am making. However, I cannot agree that this amounts to [only?] people calling themselves "Christians" are "The Anointed."

I posted Christ's words on the matter of His return and what He does and what He believed would happen in the world in the meantime, in the previous posts; I see no need to repeat them.

Yes.
But.
Have you ever considered the possibility that this teaching is false and was invented and used by the priesthood to disengage folk from the idea that they had been given a powerful means in which to free themselves from the deceptive spell they are under?

If not, then why not? If so, then tell us of your reasons as to why that could not be a possibility which should be considered.

[tam]

Peace again to you.

I posted Christ's words on the matter of His return and what He does and what He believed would happen in the world in the meantime, in the previous posts; I see no need to repeat them.

Yes.

Well this thread is about holding what Christ said about Himself as having precedence over what others say about Him, right?

But.
Have you ever considered the possibility that this teaching is false and was invented and used by the priesthood to disengage folk from the idea that they had been given a powerful means in which to free themselves from the deceptive spell they are under?

That's a bit of convoluted question, William. I'll see if I can sort it out.

Have I ever considered that the teaching that Christ is going to return is false, used by 'the priesthood'...?

No I have not. I have never had a reason to consider this to be the case, and I certainly have no reason to believe that 'the priesthood' (whatever that means) invented it. More than that though, as I have always said, I listen to Christ; hold all things up to Him (the Light). He has promised to return. He will return. I believe Him. I will remain in His word.


And considering the thread topic and the rule of thumb that you created, His words take precedence over what anyone else says about Him, right? Would that not also include what you say about Him? Or do you give yourself a free pass?

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #83]

Have you ever considered the possibility that this teaching is false and was invented and used by the priesthood to disengage folk from the idea that they had been given a powerful means in which to free themselves from the deceptive spell they are under?

No I have not. I have never had a reason to consider this to be the case, and I certainly have no reason to believe that 'the priesthood' (whatever that means) invented it.

Thus you are willing to accept the bible is true about everything, even that it has been through the hands of the priesthood of Christianity?
Why?

Have you not argued with Catholics that the priesthood is not to be trusted?

What makes you believe that the priesthood of Christianity who you have declared suspicions about - and who were involved with the establishment of the bible - are above suspicion when it comes to the Christian testament re the writings which were selected as 'genuine' and allowed to be part of the bible?

His words take precedence over what anyone else says about Him, right? Would that not also include what you say about Him? Or do you give yourself a free pass?

This is the rule of thumb initial step and does not in itself establish that anyone gets some 'free pass' - but that - having placed to one side things said about Jesus we can then examine what Jesus said about himself to establish if therein there are any contradictions/inconsistencies.

I don't say anything about Jesus. What I talk about are possibilities which fit in with what Jesus is attributed with saying. I don't claim those possibilities are real things but possible things which do not contradict and are not inconsistent with the things we are told about The Father and The Son.

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to William in post #84]

I don't say anything about Jesus. What I talk about are possibilities which fit in with what Jesus is attributed with saying. I don't claim those possibilities are real things but possible things which do not contradict and are not inconsistent with the things we are told about The Father and The Son.

Suggesting that Christ might not return (or even that He will not return) DOES contradict and IS inconsistent with what Christ says about Himself.

The possibility that Christ might not return does NOT fit in with what He is attributed with saying.


He said that He will return.


viewtopic.php?p=1054539#p1054539

[William]

Peace again,

[Replying to William in post #84]

I don't say anything about Jesus. What I talk about are possibilities which fit in with what Jesus is attributed with saying. I don't claim those possibilities are real things but possible things which do not contradict and are not inconsistent with the things we are told about The Father and The Son.

Suggesting that Christ might not return (or even that He will not return) DOES contradict and IS inconsistent with what Christ says about Himself.

The possibility that Christ might not return does NOT fit in with what He is attributed with saying.


He said that He will return.


viewtopic.php?p=1054539#p1054539

I have already addressed this concern in that The Father is the one who The Son is subject to, and if The Father changes his mind, then Jesus will follow along with The Fathers decision.

So until such a time as an appearance is actually forth-coming, your argument - such as it is - doesn't take into consideration that what was said 20 centuries ago, is no longer relevant today, because things have changed - things which I have argued the relevance of, which you have failed to address at all.

So those things remain on the table Tam.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #86]


Well which is it William? The Father changed His mind about Christ returning (you have provided no evidence of that), or the return is a lie of "the priesthood"? You have provided no evidence for that either.



(I have addressed everything you've said. I cannot help it if you ignore those responses.)

[onewithhim]

Both Difflugia and I have given good argument responding to you assertion that members of the JW Organization are wittenesses to their own interpretation of the bible and their organization, rather than witnesses to any the actual God of the Tanakh, יהוה

Please excuse my thick-headedness, but I have not seen any good arguments against Jehovah's Witnesses being witnesses of the God of the Tanakh, YHWH. Could you succinctly review your arguments once again?

To be fair, I wasn't arguing that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't in fact witnesses of the god of the Old Testament. My argument was that they aren't strongly perceived as such by the general public, despite onewithhim's assertion. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the name "Jehovah" is now more strongly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization than it is with the name of God. The converse isn't true in that other names of God are not associated with Jehovah's Witnesses in the public perception. I think an interesting demonstration of this is to check the list of hits after Google searches for "Jehovah" and then "Yahweh".

Thank you for trying to be fair.

[William]

I have already addressed this concern in that The Father is the one who The Son is subject to, and if The Father changes his mind, then Jesus will follow along with The Fathers decision.

So until such a time as an appearance is actually forth-coming, your argument - such as it is - doesn't take into consideration that what was said 20 centuries ago, is no longer relevant today, because things have changed - things which I have argued the relevance of, which you have failed to address at all.

So those things remain on the table Tam.

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #86]

Well which is it William? The Father changed His mind about Christ returning (you have provided no evidence of that), or the return is a lie of "the priesthood"? You have provided no evidence for that either.

My argument is focused on identifying the possibilities Tam, not in claiming which possibility is the correct one. Rather, which possibilities explain the continued absence of the return of the biblical Jesus.

As to evidence re both possibilities, if you are suggesting there is no biblical example of instances where the biblical God has changed his mind, or where those who are entrusted with Priestly duties betray their calling and are intentionally misrepresenting the biblical God through their words, then that would indeed surprise me.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I have already addressed this concern in that The Father is the one who The Son is subject to, and if The Father changes his mind, then Jesus will follow along with The Fathers decision.

So until such a time as an appearance is actually forth-coming, your argument - such as it is - doesn't take into consideration that what was said 20 centuries ago, is no longer relevant today, because things have changed - things which I have argued the relevance of, which you have failed to address at all.

So those things remain on the table Tam.

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #86]

Well which is it William? The Father changed His mind about Christ returning (you have provided no evidence of that), or the return is a lie of "the priesthood"? You have provided no evidence for that either.

My argument is focused on identifying the possibilities Tam, not in claiming which possibility is the correct one. Rather, which possibilities explain the continued absence of the return of the biblical Jesus.

The possibilities that you have presented are inconsistent and in conflict with what Christ said about Himself. The things you present even contradict one another!

I will remain in Christ and in His word.