What Jesus Said

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

What Jesus Said

Post #1

Post by 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.]

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5560
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #71

Post by tam »

Peace again,
I certainly did offer some script attributed to Jesus in order to back up my thoughts re what Jesus might or might not be doing Tam.

So yes - let the readers decide. I have nothing more to add and won't waste my time with the strawman chaff you are responding with.
All right William. Lets go through your post then:
William wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:23 pm [Replying to tam in post #65]
It matters what CHRIST said.
Tam. As far as I understand what you mean by that, is "what matters" is what biblical Jesus is recorded as having said.

That is in line with the thread title, yes.
William... it doesn't matter how you see it.
If it didn't matter to me, I wouldn't be here interreacting with others Tam.
It doesn't matter how I see it.
I do however respect that you tells us all how you chose to see it anyway.

It doesn't matter how jws see it. It doesn't matter how catholics see it.
etc/et al

It is from that, where each of us - you me and any other member of this Message Board - think about what it is which that is recorded for us to then have the opportunity to banter. You stating it doesn't matter what we think without any supporting reason, is besides the point.
It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth. Christ is the Truth. As He said Himself. When discussing what He teaches and what He said and what He shows us, it doesn't matter how we personally see things - it matters what HE teaches, says, reveals. We personally can be (and often are) wrong.

In my previous post, I asked you to support your claims with the words of Christ. I do not see that you did that in those previous claims, nor for this claim.
I see you are still under the somewhat naïve impression that Christ = "the individual person you have many names for including ...your "Lord Shepherd - Jah-Is-Salvation".
A - One name as I have shared, as He has confirmed to me.

B - I am a foolish thing, so perhaps I am naive. That doesn't make the above (that Christ is an individual person) wrong. Not sure what bearing that has on the topic either, since your topic is about holding things up against what an individual person said.

In any case, you said:
The Christ is not an individual person...rather It is a Spirit Personality... a gathered force of Like-Minded persona.
Compare that to what Christ said:

Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 [Jesus] replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven." Matt 16: 14-17

and,

The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us.” 26 [Jesus] answered, “I who speak to you am He.” John 4:26

A Christian demanding I support my statements with biblical quotes, is something I find humorous.
Rather, I assume any Christian participating on a Warfare Platform such as this debating site, would be prepared enough for battle, by knowing already what it is Jesus did and didn't say.
William, I just asked you to support your claim with the actual words that are written from Christ.

That is a reasonable thing to ask on this forum, and especially on this thread, considering the OP.
So in that, if you have any Jesus-quotes which show the reader categorically that Jesus' Mission wasn't to set up his Father Kingdom over the face of the Earth, using humans as the means in which to achieve this, we are all eyes and ears.
You need to support your own claims (as you are asking others on this thread to do).

Another clue as to The Father not giving the order, is that it would interfere with that more-natural outcome and his apparent distain for images [Jesus/the Bible] worshipped as if they were representing Him [if we accept that the OT YHWH is The Father in this story] ...
The order for Christ to return you mean?

It is not time yet.

I provided the quotes from Christ in my previous post for that statement. I provided those quotes which speak of other things that must happen first. I also provided the quotes from Christ which state that He will return; and therefore the Father is not going to change His mind on that.
Q: Can you please provide the statements from Christ where He tells Christians to build the Kingdom of God over the face of the planet? And also the statement from Christ where He said His return would potentially hinge upon them doing that?
I doubt that. Why do you ask? I do not recall stating that at all.
I ask because you said:
Jesus was on a mission which involved the purpose of setting up a representation of The Father's Kingdom over the face of this Planet, Earth. He left that task to Human Beings, as per The Father's instructions.
and,
What we do see are remnants of a destroyed temple. What we do hear are claims of a resurrection and of a return of Jesus once The Father gives him the okay to come on down and sort us lot out.

What we also see is the possibility that The Father has changed his mind on that, because Christians failed to complete the task The Son set for them, which was to build the Kingdom of God over the face of the planet.

**
Was it because The Father was trying to show him something about Human Beings being useless for such a task set?
Yet clearly we have evidence of Jesus' faith in Human Beings being able to achieve such a thing, if only they did what he asked them to do, which he must have been sure would be what would happen...only...
Please provide that evidence.
What evidence?
Perhaps you will accept this;

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?

One, plus the other equates "Humans are commissioned to build The Father Kingdom over the face of the whole Earth."
I might have been unclear here, sorry. You asked what evidence I was referring to. I was asking for evidence of the statement that I had bolded and underlined from your post.

Are those two statements meant to be evidence for that? If so, how would that be consistent with what Christ said (as posted in my previous post):

It may be that humans did not know that about themselves, but that is not something that Christ said humans could do, or that this world would accomplish. In fact, He said that great tribulations were coming (that those days needed to be cut short for the sake of the elect), that the world would hate His disciples (as the world hated Him), that His disciples would be persecuted and hated on account of His name. That if people rejected Him, they would also reject those He sent.

We get these passages which tell us that no, he knew all along that Human Beings would never be able to achieve that, and he would eventually have to come back and do it himself.
Perhaps then you should consider that the things you are claiming about Christ are not consistent with what He claimed about Himself or what He did or what He promised.
I don't even understand why you would say such a thing Tam.


Because in one place you say:

Yet clearly we have evidence of Jesus' faith in Human Beings being able to achieve such a thing, if only they did what he asked them to do, which he must have been sure would be what would happen...only...

And in the next place you admit that there are passages that state "he knew all along that Human Beings would never be able to achieve that, and he would eventually have to come back and do it himself."


If there are passages that state He knew human beings would never be able to achieve that, then there are passages that conflict with your statement 'clearly we have evidence of Jesus' faith in Human Beings being able to achieve such a thing'.


I am not hereabouts to defend or attack "What Jesus Said". I am here to defend my position against the attacking procedures of those claiming to be in the "true" Christian position.
I thought this thread was about what Christ said.

I am just holding your words up to His, as you are asking the rest of us to hold others words (in the bible) up to His.

I never said anything about an attack.


Q: But why go away at all, if that were the case?
He answered that question.

To prepare a place for us in the Father's house John 14:2; to send holy spirit/the water of LIFE (poured out from the Son, given to Him without end from His Father) John 16:7; to continue to call His sheep, to train us and teach us and lead us into all truth John 10:16; John 16; to continue to build up the Temple that is His body; to go to the Father John 7:33; 14:28.


Plus it was not yet the appointed time (Acts 1:7). Many things had to happen first (such as some of those things listed in Matt 24). Not everyone had yet been born, who would be called and chosen.

There is more in Revelation (that is consistent with what Christ said above).
Okay so you provide evidence from John. Anything from the other Gospel authors to support John?
And Acts, and Matthew. The evidence requested as per the OP has been provided.
Examining such reasoning, we can ascertain that this "staying away until it is time to return" could be perpetual...which amounts to the same thing as Jesus never returning, and we either build it or fail as a specie.
Except that Christ said He would return (evidence provided in previous post). His statements take precedence, right?

It may be that humans did not know that about themselves, but that is not something that Christ said humans could do, or that this world would accomplish. In fact, He said that great tribulations were coming (that those days needed to be cut short for the sake of the elect), that the world would hate His disciples (as the world hated Him), that His disciples would be persecuted and hated on account of His name. That if people rejected Him, they would also reject those He sent.
Yes, yes, but we know now that such talk comes from those with personality disorders... we now know that kind of talk was natural for its day, but things change as we get more information into our awareness.

We now know that over the course of the 20th century, fantasies of persecution became the defining modern delusion. Those who suffer persecution complex are treated accordingly.
Are you suggesting that Christ was not speaking truthfully then? Because I'm not sure what your point is, otherwise?


Meantime, perhaps secretly Jesus is somewhere on Earth pulling levelers and flicking switches behind the scenes...perhaps hoping to make it possibly for Humans to think that they made it happen while all the while it was him secretly doing so...but that would also mean that a type of co-creation between Christ and Humans was occurring.
Is that something He said He was going to do, William?
Is that something he said he wasn't going to do Tam?


I believe I asked you first.

Doesn't that also include an element of deception?
Nope. Just procedure as per The Fathers commands. 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.
If He were doing that - while hoping to make it possible for humans to think THEY were making it happen when it was really HIM secretly doing it... then does that not contain an element of deception?

That is what I was referring to.


Peace again.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #72

Post by William »

[Replying to onewithhim in post #70]

Erroneous use of biblical script is no great attack strategy...

Better to use the weapons of warfare in a debate setting, with wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity.

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.

Clearly Christianity branched away from יהוה leaving the evidence in its wake that the Story of Biblical Jesus is naturally steeped in Greek and Roman belief re gods who looked human but were superhumans and were worshiped by these cultures.
Having gods who are sacrificed or otherwise punished by other gods for the sake of humans is also a theme which runs through these cultural belief systems. Likely the result of superimposing the conquering cultures stuff on top of the conquered cultures stuff...

The idea then become, that YHWH [יהוה] created a "new covenant" which permitted that which was not permissible once upon another time and place, may have been the result of the Roman push to exterminate the idea of YHWH [יהוה] as any god, by pillaging and demolishing the Temple dedicated to YHWH [יהוה] and taking possession of the temple artifacts, prohibiting Jews from living in Israel, and creating Christianity...but they did not count on the Hebrew Insight and their ability to hide their treasure within their own alphabet where it would go unnoticed by Greek, Roman and Christian tampering procedures.
יהוה
Truly genius.

The JWOrg follows after Christianity, [Roman and Greek] rather than עִברִית.

קוף שזורק פו על משהו שהוא מפחד ממנו.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #73

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #71]
Peace again,
Image

Are you surrendering?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #74

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #71]
“Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, “You are the מָשִׁיחַ, the Son of the living God.” [Jesus] replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven." Matt 16: 14-17
So we have a clear indication that The Father can instill into our thoughts, things which we can then relay...so you are incorrect that "It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth."

Bearing in mind, The Father had a connect with Peter, but Peter still understood his own version of מָשִׁיחַ based upon the teachings of the priesthood who interpreted the Tanakh incorrectly, as Jesus showed.

Indeed, we can see in the story later that Peter resorted to those teachings when he resisted the idea of Jesus being arrested and brought to trial - which was NOT something the Priests of Judaism had taught about the מָשִׁיחַ, and Jesus told Peter to get behind him, and called Peter "Satan".

“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

So therein we can see Biblical Jesus recognizes the spirit behind the action - and Peter might have been inspired by The Father but we can see it wasn't much of a relationship. Certainly not in the way you are arguing.

Even after that, Peter succumbed to his own angry vibes because things were not going the way he thought [was taught] they should go. so not only was he not in a relationship with The Father, but his relationship with The Son was no better.

So your use of Peter as an example is not that convincing. Indeed it is poor.

What I notice about biblical Jesus and his interaction with individuals, is that he works with the individuals own beliefs and from there reflects back at them there own beliefs and from there, attempts to correct them re those beliefs.

The idea that humans are going to be left to sort themselves out isn't an untruthful one, but quite in line with the evidence, as I have already shown.

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, 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 being 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.

The idea of a warrior-savior was more in line with what the priesthood of the Tanakh taught, and by this we can understand and accept that tampering has occurred so we cannot rely on biblical writings to lead us into all truth.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5560
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #75

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
William wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:58 pm [Replying to tam in post #71]
“Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, “You are the מָשִׁיחַ, the Son of the living God.” [Jesus] replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven." Matt 16: 14-17
So we have a clear indication that The Father can instill into our thoughts, things which we can then relay...so you are incorrect that "It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth."
The point of that exchange with Peter (as well as the exchange with the woman at the well) was to compare your words about Christ with His words about Himself.

I'm not going to repeat it, it is at the top of my previous post.

As to your comment here, it is not how Peter personally saw it; it is what the Father revealed to him, which Peter heard and accepted in faith.
Bearing in mind, The Father had a connect with Peter, but Peter still understood his own version of מָשִׁיחַ based upon the teachings of the priesthood who interpreted the Tanakh incorrectly, as Jesus showed.

Indeed, we can see in the story later that Peter resorted to those teachings when he resisted the idea of Jesus being arrested and brought to trial - which was NOT something the Priests of Judaism had taught about the מָשִׁיחַ,
Well there you go. Man's personal ideas are not what matters.
and Jesus told Peter to get behind him, and called Peter "Satan".
Christ told SATAN to get behind him. He was speaking to Satan when He said "get thee behind me Satan", who was using Peter to try and stumble Christ.
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

So therein we can see Biblical Jesus recognizes the spirit behind the action - and Peter might have been inspired by The Father but we can see it wasn't much of a relationship. Certainly not in the way you are arguing.
Christ did indeed recognize the 'spirit behind the action'. But we can also see that it is not the ideas of man that matter (for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.)

Just to remind you though, I was not arguing about a relationship at all. I was showing what Christ said about Himself being the Christ/Messiah (compared to what you had said about 'the Christ').

The idea that humans are going to be left to sort themselves out isn't an untruthful one, but quite in line with the evidence, as I have already shown.
But it is not in line with what Christ said. He is the One who literally 'sorts' humans out at His return (and He said He would return), re: sheep and the goats; "many are called, few are chosen", etc.
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, 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 being 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.
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.



Peace again.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #76

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #75]
The point of that exchange with Peter (as well as the exchange with the woman at the well) was to compare your words about Christ with His words about Himself.

I'm not going to repeat it, it is at the top of my previous post.
Do you mean this?
It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth. Christ is the Truth. As He said Himself. When discussing what He teaches and what He said and what He shows us, it doesn't matter how we personally see things - it matters what HE teaches, says, reveals. We personally can be (and often are) wrong.
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.
and Jesus told Peter to get behind him, and called Peter "Satan".
Christ told SATAN to get behind him. He was speaking to Satan when He said "get thee behind me Satan", who was using Peter to try and stumble Christ.
That is where we get into territory which is questionable. Even if that were so, where then in Peters life, can we see clear evidence that Satan eventually stopped using Peter in this manner? And
Does this idea signify that Peter was not guilty of allowing Satan such passage?

When those questions are answered, we can then examine your statement in more detail, to see if there is any truth to it.
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

So therein we can see Biblical Jesus recognizes the spirit behind the action - and Peter might have been inspired by The Father but we can see it wasn't much of a relationship. Certainly not in the way you are arguing.
Christ did indeed recognize the 'spirit behind the action'. But we can also see that it is not the ideas of man that matter (for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.)

Just to remind you though, I was not arguing about a relationship at all. I was showing what Christ said about Himself being the Christ/Messiah (compared to what you had said about 'the Christ').
It is nonetheless all relevant Tam. Relationship with The Father was a key message of biblical Jesus and as such, has to be considered at all times to be the motivating principle of anything Jesus says.
The idea that humans are going to be left to sort themselves out isn't an untruthful one, but quite in line with the evidence, as I have already shown.
But it is not in line with what Christ said. He is the One who literally 'sorts' humans out at His return (and He said He would return), re: sheep and the goats; "many are called, few are chosen", etc.
Yes it is. It may not have been seen then as the most plausible option, but it would have been seen as plausible nonetheless.

As I have explained in previous posts, The Father [as יהוה] will change his mind, given any particular circumstance.
Jesus said his return could be likened to that of "a thief in the night" and so there is room for the idea that he could have returned secretly and be working with Humans re building The Fathers Kingdom over the face of the Earth.

Perhaps it is now The Father decreed that Humans are sufficiently knowledgeable to potentially achieve this build and accomplish this without having to have it accomplished by some other species which requires worship in return for their services.

As I say, there is amply biblical evidence that The Father is amicable to such positive branching off-of events, as they occur. So Jesus working behind the scenes is nothing to be frowned upon.
Christ is the Word of God.
And if The Father is therefore God, then The Father is Christ.

Or;

If you don't believe so, then we can turn once more to the agreement that Jesus is subject to The Father, not the other way around.

Either way, we are not going to be fully informed as to what either think, if we only rely on a book to tell us.

Which is why I continue to bring the focus back to The Individuals Relationship With The Father.

I should think you would understand the validity of my argument, as you have argued in a similar manner re your relationship with Jesus.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5560
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #77

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
William wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:51 pm [Replying to tam in post #75]
The point of that exchange with Peter (as well as the exchange with the woman at the well) was to compare your words about Christ with His words about Himself.

I'm not going to repeat it, it is at the top of my previous post.
Do you mean this?
No, I meant this:

**************************
In my previous post, I asked you to support your claims with the words of Christ. I do not see that you did that in those previous claims, nor for this claim.
I see you are still under the somewhat naïve impression that Christ = "the individual person you have many names for including ...your "Lord Shepherd - Jah-Is-Salvation".
A - One name as I have shared, as He has confirmed to me.

B - I am a foolish thing, so perhaps I am naive. That doesn't make the above (that Christ is an individual person) wrong. Not sure what bearing that has on the topic either, since your topic is about holding things up against what an individual person said.

In any case, you said:
The Christ is not an individual person...rather It is a Spirit Personality... a gathered force of Like-Minded persona.
Compare that to what Christ said:

Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 [Jesus] replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven." Matt 16: 14-17

and,

The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us.” 26 [Jesus] answered, “I who speak to you am He.” John 4:26

****************************
It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth. Christ is the Truth. As He said Himself. When discussing what He teaches and what He said and what He shows us, it doesn't matter how we personally see things - it matters what HE teaches, says, reveals. We personally can be (and often are) wrong.
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.
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).
Christ is the Word of God.
And if The Father is therefore God, then The Father is Christ.
Well, that does not follow, so we'll definitely have to turn to your "or" scenario. Christ is the Word of God. The Father is God. Christ certainly never claimed to be His own Father.
Or;

If you don't believe so, then we can turn once more to the agreement that Jesus is subject to The Father, not the other way around.
Of course Christ is subject to the Father and not the other way around. No one suggested otherwise.

Christ spoke just as the Father taught Him.

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me." John 14:23, 24

I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. John 12:49

"I have much to say about you and much to judge. But the One who sent Me is truthful, and what I have heard from Him, I tell the world." John 8:26

“When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. John 8:28




Peace again.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 7440
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 629 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #78

Post by onewithhim »

William wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:09 pm [Replying to onewithhim in post #70]

Erroneous use of biblical script is no great attack strategy...

Better to use the weapons of warfare in a debate setting, with wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity.

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?

.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #79

Post by William »

[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.

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.

Whatever was Peters misinformation, he must have learned that somewhere, and that learning was in conflict with what biblical Jesus was telling him.

In your case, the misinformation may be different, but it still works in a similar manner.

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

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

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

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.
Your image of The Christ is pretty much the same one as the Catholics and the JayDubs and most ever other personality calling themselves "Christians" share.

Does it matter that they think of The Christ in this manner? If it wasn't for the obvious worship of this image, I would answer "no".

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.


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.

That can be regarded as an act of co-creation.

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?

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2287
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1832 times
Been thanked: 1356 times

Re: What Jesus Said

Post #80

Post by Difflugia »

onewithhim wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:47 am
William wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:09 pmBoth 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".
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply