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.]

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #90]

I will remain in Christ and in His word.

I will continue to offer alternative interpretations to those who are here to read and/or participate in actual debate.

[Tcg]

[Replying to tam in post #90]

I will remain in Christ and in His word.

I will continue to offer alternative interpretations to those who are here to read and/or participate in actual debate.

If one were indeed interested in debate they would not cut off this statement:

"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!"

It's easy to claim one isn't interested in "actual debate" if one ignores the full content of another's post.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #92]

It's easy to claim one isn't interested in "actual debate" if one ignores the full content of another's post.

Yet if one does not ignore the full context of another's position, one can come to the eventual conclusion through sustained interaction with that other, that the other is not here to debate something which is faith-based and therefore non-negotiable [none debatable].

Would you like me to point out to you when you snip a persons post and ignore the full content of that persons post?

It happens all the time, and is not necessarily motivated by not wanting to have "actual debate" is it?

The Benefits of Debating.

Improved Critical Thinking Skills
Improved Articulation
Improved Research Skills
Quick-Thinking
Resolution of Conflict
Greater Empathy
Emotional Control
Finding Meaning in Complex Situations
Presentation Skills
A Broader View of the World
Structured and Organized Thoughts

The benefits of holding onto ones faith based beliefs:

?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #93]

To add to the post above, I saw that the statement:

"The possibilities that you have presented are inconsistent and in conflict with what Christ said about Himself."

is not a true statement, because there is no evidence that Christ made any actual statements about himself as it has been shown that biblical Jesus [aka "Christ"] doesn't appear to have written anything about himself.

I am not in the habit of getting into debate re untrue statements.

My focus has been on finding out if what folk claim Jesus said is contrary to what has been written that Jesus said...examples can be found in this thread already.

The thread subject is examining through debate, the common Christian claim that Jesus and the bible are "The Word of God".

I have stated my thinking on that, and the to-and-frow of that ended in my being informed that my argument is besides the point because my opponent "will remain in Christ and in His word."

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #94]

The thread subject is examining through debate, the common Christian claim that Jesus and the bible are "The Word of God".

I have stated my thinking on that, and the to-and-frow of that ended in my being informed that my argument is besides the point because my opponent "will remain in Christ and in His word."

This is not an accurate account of what happened. I think you might be mixing up your threads, William.

This thread is about (from your OP):

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.

Seems like you're suggesting from the OP that a Christian give precedence to His words about Himself (even if just as written). Yet when I say that I will remain in Christ and in His word, somehow that has become an issue. Even when it is shown that your statements contradict His words about Himself (as per the OP) and your 'suggestions' even contradict one another.

*shrugs*


Not sure there is much more for me to say on this particular matter than has already been said, so I will just leave the previous posts to stand for themselves, and move on.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #95]

I think you might be mixing up your threads, William.

No Tam.

I have tied them together re the claim Christians make about biblical Jesus being the "Word of God" as these are not separate issues as far as I can tell, although I am happy for you to point out to the reader why you think they are - if indeed that is what you think.

Otherwise, I am fine in continuing this battle we have been having.

I am certainly not moved by your platitude that you shall "remain with Christ and his word" as it is a statement which conveys no practical meaning which is debatable.
If you are referring to the bible as being 'his word', or to some other source, I am unsure, as I have read you write that you do not believe that the bible is the word of god.

So before we can precede with the battle [minor scuffle really] you need to clearly identify the ground you are fighting from...

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #95]

I think you might be mixing up your threads, William.

No Tam.

I have tied them together

I was responding to each issue you raised in each individual thread.

Therefore, as I said:

This is not an accurate account of what happened.

**

re the claim Christians make about biblical Jesus being the "Word of God" as these are not separate issues as far as I can tell, although I am happy for you to point out to the reader why you think they are - if indeed that is what you think.

That could be tackled on this thread, but you might be hard-pressed to provide evidence that this is inconsistent or contradictory with what Christ said about Himself.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #97]

That could be tackled on this thread, but you might be hard-pressed to provide evidence that this is inconsistent or contradictory with what Christ said about Himself.

I have provided evidence in that there is no record of either Jesus or the bible claiming to be 'the word of god.'

If you want to provide evidence that this is incorrect, then do so. If you just want to end this with the platitude "I will remain with Christ and his word", you are free to do so, even if you cannot/will not explain what that means and what that has to do with what biblical Jesus said.

Re the claim Christians make about biblical Jesus being the "Word of God"

I am certainly not moved by your platitude that you shall "remain with Christ and his word" as it is a statement which conveys no practical meaning which is debatable.
If you are referring to the bible as being 'his word', or to some other source, I am unsure, as I have read you write that you do not believe that the bible is the word of god.

So before we can precede with the battle [minor scuffle really] you need to clearly identify the ground you are fighting from...

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #97]

That could be tackled on this thread, but you might be hard-pressed to provide evidence that this is inconsistent or contradictory with what Christ said about Himself.

I have provided evidence in that there is no record of either Jesus or the bible claiming to be 'the word of god.'

That does not make the statement (Christ is the Word of God) inconsistent or contradictory with anything Christ said about Himself.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #99]

I have provided evidence in that there is no record of either Jesus or the bible claiming to be 'the word of god.'

That does not make the statement (Christ is the Word of God) inconsistent or contradictory with anything Christ said about Himself.

That IS the inconsistency Tam. I am attempting to point that out to you.

BJ did not say he was 'the word of God'.
I also explained that in more detail, in previous post(s).

The way BJ spoke of himself was as The Fathers Messenger. Therefore [according to agreeing with your argument], ANY messenger before and after BJ, can also be considered 'The Word of God" even, for example, You - or The Pope or a member of the Jehovah's Witness organization. What makes your/their word any less proven that BJ's, that the title is bestowed on him only.

Furthermore, -[ apart from in who's name the delivery of said messages come] - what makes said messages "The Word of God?" when it has never been established what exactly is a "Word of God", anyway?