Was Jesus Really the Christ?

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

First, I just want to publicly apologize for my comments to you...I completely misunderstood your intent. Thanks for your clarification via PM.

No harm, no foul. I understand that certain things can really hit certain buttons and that's why I TRY to respond in a manner that acknowledged that or at the very least provided some clearity.

What about all the prophesies that he did fulfill?

I dunno, I guess I just don't get what the problem is?

This is the heart of the issue and what will in fact help further the discussion to the side of Jesus being the Christ. If it can be shown that Jesus actually fulfilled the accepted Messianic prophecies than the argument against Him being the Christ becomes silly. The problem is complex in that it involves there being an agreement on what was and what was not a Messianic prophesy as well as why Jesus did not fulfill ALL of the agreed upon prophecies.

 

[CORE]

The problem is complex in that it involves there being an agreement on what was and what was not a Messianic prophesy as well as why Jesus did not fulfill ALL of the agreed upon prophecies.

I don't even see a problem, let alone a complex one...

Again, Zechariah 14:9 for example ... "And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one."

Why does this prophecy need to have happened already in order to believe that Jesus is the Christ? Just because He hasn't physically established that kingdom yet, doesn't mean He won't....and when He does, who will care about prophecy anymore? You won't need it...He'll be there right before our eyes for all to see, no more belief needed and no more prophecies to fulfill.

 

[CORE]

For whatever reason, I overlooked this post:

They claim that all of the things the Messiah was prophesied to do and accomplished Jesus failed to do and Jesus' followers know this so they errantly claim that he will come again to do the things he failed at back in the first century. The issue they have with the "come again" logic is that "their" prophesied Messiah was not ever spoken of as needing to come again.

There are prophesies that refer to suffering and those that refer to glory...there is nothing that says these contrasting prophesies had to happen concurrently, nor does it tell us they had to be fulfilled in sequence immediately one right after the next.

We do not "errantly" claim that Christ will come again...We claim it because scripture states repeatedly that He will come again - we are not making this stuff up.

...and again, what is the point of only believing once all the prophesies are fulfilled? At that point there really doesn't seem to be a need for "belief."

"...blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

[gr8grace]

What have you been taught on how to get saved?

- Hear the gospel of Christ.
- Believe the gospel.
- Repent from my ways and resolve to turn to follow Jesus
- Confess publically my faith in Jesus being the Son of God
- Get baptised into Christ
- Live faithfully as a Christian

what do you think the bible says about being saved?

I believe the Bible says much on the subject. To sum it up shortly, I believe that Jesus speaks of salvation from the wages of sin being realized through Him. All those that willingly submit their hearts and lives to Jesus will have access to the "Tree of Life" and "rivers of life" in the resurrection.

Are you saved and are just convinced that you gave it up?

My understanding of when I was or will be saved had changed while my faith was at its strongest point. I held to the belief that my hope was a resurrection to age lasting life under the reign of King Jesus and His saints. I fully believed that I would be rewarded witht he gift of "eternal" life due to my willingness to give my heart to Christ.
I didn't give up being saved as I still hold to the values of righteousness my faith instilled in me, but although my 'walk' is the same, my trust in the reward being there for faith no longer exists. I didn't and do not want to give up on the hope of eternal life as promised by the Christ, but I am lacking enough evidence to convince me that holding on to my hope is warranted.

I'm seeking evidence that can renew my hope.

- Hear the gospel of Christ.
- Believe the gospel.
- Repent from my ways and resolve to turn to follow Jesus
- Confess publically my faith in Jesus being the Son of God
- Get baptised into Christ
- Live faithfully as a Christian

Keep the first 2 and scratch the rest for salvation. After the first 2 you have what the Christian should do in their walk with Christ.

******************** Jesus Christ himself, said the following ********************

“Whosoever believes in me will not perish, but have everlasting life.” Jn 3:15

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” Jn 3:16

“He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Jn 3:18

“He that believes the Son has everlasting life, and he that believes not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Jn 3:36

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one that which sees the Son, and believes on him, will have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”Jn 6:40

“Truly I say unto you, he that believes on me, has everlasting life.” Jn 6:47

 

[VirginShallConceive]

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life.†Jn 3:16

This one troubles me as of late. For me, although this verse is extremely popular, this one reeks of human propaganda. Only begotten Son? Why add "only begotten Son" as a "strong point", unless you were desperately grasping at anything possible to convince someone? This is the "Creator of the Universe" that we are talking about here, let alone the fact that after the "Trinity" was voted on in an attempt to connect all the loose ends, His "only begotten Son" was Himself.

The only explanation that I can honestly come up with is that the author of John 3:16 was oblivious to the concept of the Trinity and also wasn't keeping in mind the concept of "All-Powerful God Who Would Have Infinite Sons At His Disposal, None of Which He would Actually Need, Being All-Powerful And All".

:dunno

 

[Sparkey]

the author of John 3:16 was oblivious to the concept of the Trinity and also wasn't keeping in mind the concept of "All-Powerful God Who Would Have Infinite Sons At His Disposal, None of Which He would Actually Need, Being All-Powerful And All".

I would have to agree that John did not have that in mind at all. Glad of it, actually, as there is no problem with John 3:16 as stated in the Holy Writ. John was speaking about the Love of God that was shown by the actions of His only begotten, Jesus.

 

[josefnospam]

Re: Was Jesus Really the Christ?

Yes

The Samarian women said " ...........I know that when the Messias cometh which is called CHRIST, when he is come he will tell us all things........'
Jesus answered '........I that speak unto thee am he........." John 4:26

Also Paul pressed in the spirit ....."testified to the JEWS that Jesus was Christ" ...............Acts 18:5 Jesus is Christ and savior. There are several other scriptures that say this.......................so YES......Jesus is Christ.

 

[Sparkey]

You can't just make stuff up. The allegation has been made that this is exactly what believers of the 1st century did. It is suggested that eyewitness accounts that were given then should be called into question now. Let's say somebody wants to challenge the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, does that mean he wasn't? I didn't see it happen, did you? Yet, he was not the only one raised from the dead either. The bible states that others were too. Matt. 27:52

Acts 20:7-12 Eutychus fell from the window, Acts 9:36-42, Paul raised Dorcas

Jesus appeared before many during the 40 days between his death and ascension. Some may want to come today and say that Jesus was a fictional character and that he never existed. Others may want to say, "Yeah, we know there was a man who lived back then, but he is not the Christ." Still others could say that the whole story was invented to provide a backstory to their sacred beliefs.

Yet, the questions, especially raised 2,000 years after the fact, do not alter what happened. Free previously pointed to the obvious /DUH factor when the argument that denies that Jesus is the Promised Messiah is based on speculation of non-believing Jews. When we look at what the 12 that were sent out said, they also being Jews, we see substantial evidence.

How can the truth be denied simply because it is not universally received. There will soon be a time when every knee shall bow, that time is not yet today so there is still hope for those who deny this essential truth.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

How can the truth be denied simply because it is not universally received.

We can definately agree that universal reception does not the truth make. The issue in this case is not the reception of the truth but rather it is what exactly was/is the truth. The facts or what happenned in Palestine some 2000 years ago are what is up for debate.

You can't just make stuff up. The allegation has been made that this is exactly what believers of the 1st century did. It is suggested that eyewitness accounts that were given then should be called into question now. Let's say somebody wants to challenge the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, does that mean he wasn't? I didn't see it happen, did you? Yet, he was not the only one raised from the dead either. The bible states that others were too.

The allegations are that the writers of the NT were either misled or flat out fabricating what actually happened in the decades prior to them pinning the gospel accounts. The 1st century believers are not the ones being accused of making things up. They were said to simply be victims that were deceived by false teaching and fake facts into believing in something that was a fabrication of the truth.
The issue is not whether the majority of believers of which some even became martyrs were mad liers willing to die to promote a non truth, the issue instead is that they believed to be true based in fact or were they mistaken as it relates to what the truth was.

 

[Sparkey]

The facts or what happenned in Palestine some 2000 years ago are what is up for debate.

Not so. There is no debate on my part. I can accept the facts as God Breathed without dispute. Those who wish to invent alternate reasons for the biblical record may do so, but the inventions of the imagination remain unconvincing, in my opinion for what it's worth.

I do like the statement you've made about your intention to debate the facts though, well said. They are facts and you are welcome to attempt to debate them if you like but only as you remain within the Terms of Service here.

Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah and this fact does not seek or need your validation. I've noticed some change from your original position when starting this thread:

I'll begin by saying that it is my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is in fact the Son of the living God and His Anointed One.

Care to explain this? I'd hate to suspect duplicity on your part without first giving you an opportunity to address it.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Care to explain this? I'd hate to suspect duplicity on your part without first giving you an opportunity to address it.

I created this thread a couple years back to solicit help in the tall task of proving that Jesus is in fact the Christ and that the NT writings were just as inspired as the OT writings. The fact that I was not able to give an answer to those that claimed the NT to be more legend than history and that it had writers that claimed Messianic fulfillment based on things that were not intended to be messianic in the old testament is a problem for me in fulfilling the challenge to prove all things I believe(d).

 

[Sinthesis]

Care to explain this? I'd hate to suspect duplicity on your part without first giving you an opportunity to address it.

I created this thread a couple years back to solicit help in the tall task of proving that Jesus is in fact the Christ and that the NT writings were just as inspired as the OT writings. The fact that I was not able to give an answer to those that claimed the NT to be more legend than history and that it had writers that claimed Messianic fulfillment based on things that were not intended to be messianic in the old testament is a problem for me in fulfilling the challenge to prove all things I believe(d).

You will never in this lifetime be able to prove fulfillment to someone who doesn't want to believe. You can present an overwhelming argument to refute the contentions of others, however it is up to them whether they accept it. If you would like help in forming this argument, then please illustrate exactly what contentions you would like answers for.

 

[Sparkey]

That's some tall order there, right? Historians who are far more learned than me debate such stuff.

But then there's me. When I went to the Lord in prayer this morning there was no doubt that He heard me. Sometimes we take too much on to ourselves. That does not mean that we have no basis for trust.

 

[Sparkey]

“The Invention of Lying” is an entertaining movie that premiered in theatres in 2009 where the stage is set in a world where lying does not exist. Not even as a concept. The main character, Mark, develops the ability to lie and soon discovers that dishonesty has great advantages. In one scene Mark's mother lay on her deathbed and confessed her fear of an 'eternity of nothingness'. Her son, who had only recently become the first man to lie in all of history understandably wanted to comfort her.

In the very last seconds of his mother's life he spoke, using his newfound talent of lying in order to ease her pain, he first empathises with a sigh, "Oh, Mom," Then, a new thought, as he commiserates with her plight, and a moment later, the traces of his *new* idea could be seen to cross his face. "Mom," he said, now hopeful, "Listen to me."

"Listen carefully."

"You're wrong about what happens after you die," he solemnly assured her, "it's not going to turn into eternal nothingness."

A glimmer of hope appears in her eyes. She had absolutely no experience or knowledge of lying and was incapable of even the conception of the idea that anybody could (this is the very premise of the movie). The sound of her affirmation was heard, "Ah-huh." The dejected expression on her face changes, slightly at first.

"You'll go to your favorite place in the whole world," he said. "And everyone you've ever loved and who has ever loved you will be there."

Tears of joy began to well up in her eyes and her son continued, "And... you'll be young again."

"You'll run and jump, like you used to. And dance." The timber of his voice carried his concern, touching his audience and his mother equally for the doctors and nurses had gathered behind them hanging on his every word.

"You used to dance," he sobbed. "And there's no pain." Now openly weeping, "There's love." "Happiness."

The next sentence caught my attention as it seemed a direct plagiarism of what Jesus has promised, "And everyone gets a mansion." He is still weeping, "... and it lasts for eternity." "An eternity, Mom." It was then that the elderly woman breathed her last breath at the sound of her son's last words, filled with promise, "Say hello to Dad for me." His voice trailed off as his mother passed.

The tenderness continued and the contrived movie moment was drawn out for effect, "Tell him I love him."

[Camera zooms back to pan the room, now filled with witnesses] The other patients and their care providers are enraptured by the lie. "Go on," says one. "What else happens?" asks another.

*******************************************

Interesting premise, right? "The Invention of the Lie." I thought of this thread and brought my little transcription of the screenplay here because although there are several things that this "lie" holds in common with the Bible and the Word of God, there are also some things that I deem fabrications simply because they don't line up with the Word of Truth. Things like, "everybody whom you have ever loved or has ever loved you will be there..."

Pretty remarkable omission on the part of the Apostles there, well, that is, if they were lying. But given that God gave Jesus the words to speak and that His son faithfully spoke them, then in turn, those whom Jesus sent to speak the truth also spoke what they heard and did not embellish, this omission isn't that remarkable. Instead it comprises a sort of evidence, does it not? It does to me, again, for what that is worth.

 

[Butch5]

I'll begin by saying that it is my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is in fact the Son of the living God and His Anointed One. I know most here will agree with me in that regard. But rather than stating what our belief is about Jesus, I started this thread so that we can share WHY we believe as we do giving scriptural support for our beliefs. I hope that this will challenge many and in the process lead us into more truth and at the very least cause us to "sharpen our swords."

Many do not believe Jesus was the Messiah and they have used the following verses as proof that Jesus did not fulfill the OT's requirements. What say you?

• Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
• Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
• Ezekiel 38:16
• Hosea 3:4-3:5
• Micah 4
• Zephaniah 3:9
• Zechariah 14:9
• Daniel 10:14

It's difficult to address those passages without hearing the arguments they are used with. However, as to why I believe that Jesus is the Christ is the fulfillment of Prophesy.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

It's difficult to address those passages without hearing the arguments they are used with. However, as to why I believe that Jesus is the Christ is the fulfillment of Prophesy.

Sorry for the late response Butch, but to answer your question the issue that is raised is that JEsus didn't do what the passages listed said the Messiah would do therefore he cannot be the prophesied Messiah. The claim is that in order to side this shortcoming, the NT writers wrote wote about acts that had nothing to do with OT MEssianic prophesy and applied those acts to Jesus in an attempt to legitimize His Messianic claim.

 

[Sparkey]

You will never in this lifetime be able to prove fulfillment to someone who doesn't want to believe.

Nor do you need to. That has already been done.

In Acts 17:31 and thereabouts, we see, ... "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." we read further that He, " ... [has] furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus, His son] from the dead."

If we know that this is true and that God has done as declared, why do we need to convince others who choose to deny? In fact, how can we do what God is unable (or unwilling) to do? Sometimes I think that's where the term "bible-thumping" comes from.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Nor do you need to. That has already been done. In Acts 17:31 and thereabouts, we see, ... "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." we read further that He, " ... [has] furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus, His son] from the dead." If we know that this is true and that God has done as declared, why do we need to convince others who choose to deny? In fact, how can we do what God is unable (or unwilling) to do? Sometimes I think that's where the term "bible-thumping" comes from.

Some people require more in order to build/establish their faith. THomas needed to touch Jesus' very wounds in order to believe. As believers there is a calling to "meet people where they are" if the goal is to win their souls. Paul tried to do this very thing by being all things to all people because his goal was winning their souls above anything else.

 

[Sparkey]

Good point about Thomas.

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

We are even more blessed today.

 

[Sinthesis]

You will never in this lifetime be able to prove fulfillment to someone who doesn't want to believe.

Nor do you need to. That has already been done.

In Acts 17:31 and thereabouts, we see, ... "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." we read further that He, " ... [has] furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus, His son] from the dead."

If we know that this is true and that God has done as declared, why do we need to convince others who choose to deny? In fact, how can we do what God is unable (or unwilling) to do? Sometimes I think that's where the term "bible-thumping" comes from.

The word which you take as 'proof' is more accurately translated as 'assurance', which relates to 'faith' or 'belief' and doesn't rely on objective provable facts regardless of the truth of the matter. Faith can't be proven in this lifetime, because what lies beyond this lifetime is still unseen by the living. People will believe what they want to believe, even if it isn't true. We try to convince others in love, but they must be the ones who surrender to the Holy Spirit and accept Jesus. We can't make them, we just offer them what we know to be true though our faith.