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/

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I remember you mentioning your aunt believing she had running conversations with Jesus, but the part about Jesus standing her up on her eightieth and all the rest that follows is new to me.

[tam]

.

The focus should be on Him. To rely upon Him.

"This is my Son. Listen to Him."

So it is necessary to rely upon CHRIST. As for His teachings, He teaches truth, and truth does not change. (though it may be more deeply understood as one grows and matures).

But yes, His sheep rely upon Him here and now.

Does this apply only to those who hear directly and personally from Jesus (or think they do)?

This applies to His sheep - those who belong to Him. "My sheep hear my voice."

How do "regular" Christians (who do not have such episodes) learn what "he says"?

There are no regular verses irregular Christians. There are Christians (those who are anointed with holy spirit, and need no other person to teach them; they learn from Christ and from the anointing He gave them); and there are disciples of Christ - who may also hear the voice of Christ, but who may not yet be anointed with holy spirit, and so may not yet be Christian.

Then there are also those who claim to be Christian but who are not; who are instead false.

I'm not saying who is who. I am just saying that such exist. You know this to be true, even if just because of that clergy project where clergy no longer believe.

The supposed teachings attributed to Jesus in Bible stories have passed through uncountable human hands and minds and are subject to error, modification, addition, falsification, etc -- all human frailties. What assures that what is recorded is what Jesus taught?

The only thing I know that assures if something is accurate as Christ said it, is to ask Him.


Other than that, I suppose one can go by consistency of what multiple people record Him as having said; use reasoning; and test the content of the things said (do you hear truth in them, are they from love, etc).

For me, I heard truth in His words and teachings, as written. I believed Him, and I went from there.

Before I knew my Lord, and His voice, I picked up a lot of things along the way without testing them to see if they were true or not (like the doctrine of hellfire). I had to let go of all of these things. Tear down the entire house right to the foundation cornerstone (Christ); and rebuild upon Him, and Him alone.

I still take stock at times, inspecting the house to make sure I haven't let in any 'rot' or rust. I want my house to stand, in the coming winds and rain.

When I started seeking Christ again as an adult (a decade or so back), I did start with what is written; but at some point, I had to set that book aside and just go with what I was hearing, even though I didn't understand enough at the time to put that into words. I was following what my Lord was telling me; I was following the Spirit.



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

[marco]

Who do you think Jesus claimed to have been? God or a scientist? Or a combination of Rabbi/Prophet/Messiah?

If the latter, his contributions would have been strictly Spiritual and religious, not practical or technological.

He certainly didn't demonstrate that he was scientifically inclined, EJ. I cannot think of any prophecy he uttered. He had a liking for the sanctity of a temple. Messiah? I would have thought his passport was inadequate since it failed to move Judaism from Judaism.

People today are good because there are good folk in the world (as the Russian proverb says.) The best we can offer is to say that the anonymous man, who wrote nothing down, is credited with some good words and deeds. So was Gandhi.

[tam]

[Replying to post 39 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Peace to you TOTN.


It is all about hearing (his voice) - my sheep hear my voice. Not seeing. So... invisible. I have never seen my Lord with my physical eyes (well, in a dream, but that was just an image, not the reality).




I think I remember you telling me some about your Aunt. I appreciate the story of her, she sounds like a lovely woman, so there is no need to apologize for telling it more than once. I am glad she died happy and at peace.



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

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

Hi tam

A whole lotta KNOWIN' goin' on.

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

I don't understand your question.

A whole lotta lovin going on.. from Jerry Lee Lewis. I changed the word "lovin" to "claimin" down below. Hey.. I'm a fan.

So, in your last post, I asked you where you got your info.. from Christ or what.
Because there's a whole lotta claimin' goin' on. You tell us a LOT of things about "Christ".

I want to know why anyone should pay attention to you about it.

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.

If it's in CONFLICT, it's not too CONSISTENT, is it?

But just because the belief is not in CONFLICT... doesn't mean the belief is TRUE. You may have VERY consistent beliefs that are FALSE. Consistency ( not being in conflict ) isn't a guarantee for the TRUTH of your beliefs.

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.

You can see it that way.
I don't.

Jesus also talked about HELL... and a lot of CHRISTIANS out there believe that entails a little BURNING. What YOU may consider CONSISTENT might NOT be so CONSISTENT to other Christians.

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.

Says WHO?
How do we VERIFY this info?

A LOT of people thought that's what Jesus EXACTLY meant, and would have disagreed with YOU.

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

Says WHO?
How do we VERIFY this info?

A lot of people MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

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.

Says WHO again?
Some people might not agree with you.

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.

What is pretty basic to SOME people might NOT be pretty basic to ANOTHER.
Who SAYS that your beliefs are true, tam?

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.

I didn't SAY that you were. I'm just saying that OTHERS MIGHT.
How do you KNOW that your beliefs are true?

HOW, tam, HOW?

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

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

HOW ON EARTH does someone "test against Christ"?
Do they ask TAM?

Others do that and get DIFFERENT RESULTS than you do, tam.
NOW WHAT?

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.

How did you get THAT info?
From tam?

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."

But why should we believe whatever is in a book?
You don't believe everything that you read, do you?

A LOT of Christians read the Bible and do NOT come to the same conclusions as Tam. NOW WHAT?

Is that how we tell that they aren't following Christ?
Because they don't agree with Tam?

[tam]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

Hi tam

A whole lotta KNOWIN' goin' on.

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

I don't understand your question.

A whole lotta lovin going on.. from Jerry Lee Lewis. I changed the word "lovin" to "claimin" down below. Hey.. I'm a fan.

Hmm.

I thought it was a 'whole lotta SHAKIN' going on".

So, in your last post, I asked you where you got your info.. from Christ or what.
Because there's a whole lotta claimin' goin' on. You tell us a LOT of things about "Christ".

I want to know why anyone should pay attention to you about it.

Well, if you're waiting for me to start talking about why people should pay attention to me, you're going to be waiting a very long time.

I am no one.

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.

If it's in CONFLICT, it's not too CONSISTENT, is it?

But just because the belief is not in CONFLICT... doesn't mean the belief is TRUE. You may have VERY consistent beliefs that are FALSE. Consistency ( not being in conflict ) isn't a guarantee for the TRUTH of your beliefs.

This is going in circles. May I suggest that you go back and re-read what I originally wrote in response to you, keeping the example in mind as a means to further explain what I meant.

Then get back to me if you still wish to continue this line of conversation. Because I cannot follow how you get from what I said, to what you are saying.

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.

You can see it that way.
I don't.

It has nothing to do with how a person personally sees something. In no way did He ever teach that anyone should be burned a the stake.

I can produce a multitude of verses that speak against it... and against any cursing, killing, or persecuting of anyone, including enemies. His DIRECT words as recorded. He also never DID something like that. Even His followers record in some of the letters in the NT that what one should do with a heretic is 'NOT INVITE THEM INTO YOUR HOME OR LISTEN TO THEM.'

That is a pretty far cry from 'burn them at the stake.'


Can you produce anything from Him, much less a single word that He is written to have said, stating directly that one should kill, harm, curse, etc, enemies?

Jesus also talked about HELL... and a lot of CHRISTIANS out there believe that entails a little BURNING. What YOU may consider CONSISTENT might NOT be so CONSISTENT to other Christians.

Setting aside the meaning of that word... did Christ ever say to go and actually burn people? Or was this something to do with an "afterlife" and judgment AFTER death?

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.

Says WHO?
How do we VERIFY this info?

Says Christ, says some from the written word (anyone who hates his brother does not know God)... etc, etc.

A LOT of people thought that's what Jesus EXACTLY meant, and would have disagreed with YOU.

No. A lot of people decided that the best way to silence those who knew that they were frauds would be to silence them permanently.

A lot of people looked to the frauds to know what God wanted, and not Christ. No one could use Christ's words to truly justify burning anyone at the stake.

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

Says WHO?
How do we VERIFY this info?

Look at what is written, the words attributed to Him, and verify it for yourself.

A lot of people MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

So what?

Is truth dependent upon how many people agree with it?

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.

Says WHO again?
Some people might not agree with you.

Then SHOW IT Blastcat. Show me where I have misrepresented Christ here. You keep saying some people might not agree with me, but you are not actually providing anything to show me that I have misrepresented.


Where does Christ say that it is okay to burn enemies at the stake? Where does He do it himself? How would you bypass His words to love one's enemies; to turn the other cheek; to bless those who curse you; to do good to those who hate you? How would you bypass His own words and deeds, in asking His Father to forgive those who had falsely accused Him, beat Him, tortured Him, lied about Him, handed Him over to be killed, and crucified at that? How would you bypass Him rebuking Peter for picking up a sword to attack those who came to attack Christ? How would you bypass Him saying NOT to judge, not to condemn? How would you bypass his words to be merciful? His words that God requires mercy, not sacrifice?

What is it if not sacrifice when one burns a so-called heretic at the stake?

Where is it written in even one NT letter from those who followed Christ, that anything should be done OTHER THAN not listening to such people?

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.

What is pretty basic to SOME people might NOT be pretty basic to ANOTHER.
Who SAYS that your beliefs are true, tam?

Aren't we speaking about what is or is not in line with or against Christ? So that we can tell what is true according to Him, by testing against Him, His words, His teachings, His deeds?

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.

I didn't SAY that you were. I'm just saying that OTHERS MIGHT.
How do you KNOW that your beliefs are true?

Well, who cares what others might say?

I test my 'beliefs' against Christ. and/or receive them from Him.

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

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

HOW ON EARTH does someone "test against Christ"?
Do they ask TAM?

No, of course not. If they are going to ask someone, then they should ask Christ. That is the best option. If they are not going to ask or are unable to receive what He would tell them, then at the very least, they can see what He is written to have said.

That is not perfect, but it is better than just blindly following other men who CLAIM to know.

Others do that and get DIFFERENT RESULTS than you do, tam.
NOW WHAT?

Well, we can lay it all out on the table. Some will see, some will not. What can you do other than present the truth that you have learned from your Lord (and show what is written from Him as well, if need be), and leave others to do with that what they will?

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.

How did you get THAT info?
From tam?

Where did I get the info that God said to listen to His Son?

It is backed up for you to be able to see in what is written.

Where does someone get the info that we are supposed to listen to someone other than Christ?

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."

But why should we believe whatever is in a book?
You don't believe everything that you read, do you?

You may believe whatever you choose to believe Blastcat. I am just showing you the backing for what I have said.

You keep suggesting that some will disagree with me. Well, what are they saying and where do they get their backing?

A LOT of Christians read the Bible and do NOT come to the same conclusions as Tam. NOW WHAT?

Now nothing.

It is written in black and white. If someone has read the bible and has not seen that Christ is the One that we are told to listen to, then they may either unwilling and/or unable to see that (at this time). Perhaps they just missed it; and someone showing them what is actually written (as opposed to what some religious leader might have taught them in opposition to what is written), will help them to see that it is indeed Christ they are supposed to listen TO.

Obviously at least one person is wrong if two people claim conflicting things. Perhaps there is just some misunderstanding.

But why would I listen to anyone who is in conflict with Christ, when it is Christ who I belong to and follow? When it is Christ I call Lord?

Is that how we tell that they aren't following Christ?
Because they don't agree with Tam?

Of course not.

If they don't actually follow Christ, well, that would be a good way to tell, wouldn't it?


Christ says:

"Bless those who curse you."


Person A says, 'Nah... I'm gonna curse those who curse me."

Person A is not following Christ. Person A might say "Lord Lord", but person A is not doing what the Lord says to do. So why does Person A even call Christ, Lord?

That is my Lord's question even in what is written:

"Why do you call me Lord, yet do not do what I say?"





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

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

HI, tam,

You're a preacher, I'm a preacher.

It's just that we preach about different things.
You preach about CHRIST, and I preach about SOUND REASONING.

I think that even those who preach about Christ should ALSO use SOUND REASONING.

I hope that you agree.

[tam]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

HI, tam,

You're a preacher, I'm a preacher.

It's just that we preach about different things.
You preach about CHRIST, and I preach about SOUND REASONING.

I think that even those who preach about Christ should ALSO use SOUND REASONING.

I hope that you agree.

Well since it appears you are not going to respond to any of the questions that I asked (even though I responded to your questions to me), I must assume you have no argument against my reasoning and accept that it is sound, at least on this topic.



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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

I am no one.

If I'm not to listen to you, then this automatically means no listening to Christ either. Given that I don't hear any mystical voice at all, then you become the only 'source' I could use for this voice. But since I'm not to listen to you, and Christ remains silent to me, well then, I guess there's no Christ for me.

Says Christ, says some from the written word (anyone who hates his brother does not know God)... etc, etc.

But that statement (says Christ) is completely unjustified. I don't know if what's in the Bible actually WAS Christ's words recorded accurately. I also cannot use you as a source for whenever you report on what Christ says to you. I can't use Christ himself because I don't hear him (and my explanation for why I don't hear him is that there is no Christ to hear).

Look at what is written, the words attributed to Him, and verify it for yourself.

We can't. There is no Christ for me to hear, more than likely because there quite simply is no Christ.

Is truth dependent upon how many people agree with it?

There is in this case, of a certain specific voice supposedly being able to be heard. If only one person reports hearing this voice, then it's doubtful. If a whole roomful of people report hearing the voice, then there's consensus.

Then SHOW IT Blastcat. Show me where I have misrepresented Christ here.

Even in the hypothetical scenario where Blastcat (or I or anyone else) can produce a quote attributed to Christ where he says something like "Burn them!", I strongly suspect you would deny it. You would retort by saying "Christ told me that that quote was not said by him" and we would be unable to verify or falsify this claim.
In other words, Bible Christ can be defeated by us, but not the Voice-Christ (as I call him) that you claim to hear. THAT Christ is completely immune to any and all attack.

How would you bypass His words to love one's enemies;

Hypothetically speaking, one could believe that those words were NOT Christ's after all, and that Christ said other things, such as "Burn my enemies at the stake".

I test my 'beliefs' against Christ. and/or receive them from Him.

And when you report back to us (the non-believers, the people who don't hear anything) about these tests, we have no reason at all to believe you. You say your beliefs pass these tests, but why should we believe you? Earlier you said not to listen to you.

To try to wrap your head around it, to try to get you to understand...use this analogy. Imagine you speak English and...Swahili (to pick a language I don't understand myself). I have no idea what Swahili sounds like. I know of no-one around me who speaks it. You claim to speak Swahili. When I ask for evidence that you actually are fluent, you claim to be able to go into this other room, that I can't enter, where you speak with a nebulous gentleman, whom I've never met, seen or heard, and according to you, you are able to carry on a conversation in Swahili with this man.
As far as I'm able to determine, the only two people in this building are myself and you. I see no evidence of this other gentleman who speaks Swahili. I have no idea if the sounds you make with your mouth are the language of Swahili.

No, of course not. If they are going to ask someone, then they should ask Christ. That is the best option. If they are not going to ask or are unable to receive what He would tell them, then at the very least, they can see what He is written to have said.

But I have no reason to believe that the Bible contains his actual words. You're treating the Bible as an axiom.
I'm back to the two Christs. How do I get from Bible Christ to Voice-Christ, when despite YEARS of trying, I never once heard anything? I can read all about Bible Christ all day long if I want to, but quite clearly that doesn't yield results.

[ttruscott]

He claimed to be the door to GOD and salvation from sin (its enslavement and the legal consequences) and died for the redemption of the sinful elect. Enough for any elelct...