Did Jesus claim to be the messiah?

I agree with your point.
But you have to go deeper.
Many times perception is guided by what we WANT to hear. What we WANT to be true. The story that we WANT to be told. The story that supports our side/agenda.
Different perceptions can be a "honest" difference.
Different perceptions can also be "dishonest" differences in that facts and evidence get shoved to the side and ones agenda becomes the controlling factor.
The only way to avoid/minimize the "perception" issue is to rely on evidence, facts and proof.
Even with facts / proof / evidence a jury / judge still has to determine if it’s convincing to them or not. We don’t always agree with their verdict, especially if it’s not how we thought / wanted it to be. That didn’t make the crime false or inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely.
The teller AND the hearer both have a responsibility.
Only facts and proof, as boring or cold or unspiritual as that might be, can minimize all these human traits/agendas.
And even facts and proof can be muddy waters as facts and proof dont necessarily remain facts or proof forever.
I agree. It would behoove a man, if once made aware of any matter of static/interference with either his speaking or his hearing to take measures to their identification and silencing in at least as profound a degree as he desires truth.

I'd almost say it's kind of axiomatic...not even that one "should"...but that one could not even avoid it. If one has an interest in clear speaking and clear hearing, he can't help but be moved by matters (when made known to him) that would interfere. (We might even call this a matter of "clear" relating...a transparency?)

Of course we get back to this matter that doggedly pursues this at every turn

"If I say I am a man interested only in the truth of things...am I...really?"

and, no less

"If I hear a man say his only interest is in the truth of things...is he?"


I am convinced apart from each man recognizing that primarily (firstly) the matter of his own static, the matter of his own bent toward self deception, the internal "stuff" is all he can really attend to for clarity. He might find this also goes a long way in what appears the outside.

Once he is convinced it is he, no less than any other, but to better known of himself as such in "All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes"...

well, it is, what it is.

He might even learn he can stop saying "All I am interested in is the truth"...finding even that statement can carry its own static of self exaltation.


Could a man find out that truth is inescapable...regardless of where or how he self measures his relationship to it?

After all, when was the last time either of us heard anyone say "I just love being lied to and then go about spreading those same lies?" Our capacity to cast ourselves in the "best light"...well...it is what it is.


"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my closeup."
 
Even with facts / proof / evidence a jury / judge still has to determine if it’s convincing to them or not. We don’t always agree with their verdict, especially if it’s not how we thought / wanted it to be. That didn’t make the crime false or inaccurate.
That's true.
Its certainly an imperfect process. It all stills boils down to what we are willing to believe or not believe. But facts/proof/evidence is the least imperfect process we as humans have come up with so far.
 
Thread starter #144
Depends I guess. Maybe the stories really happened, MN subs one is completely accurate, the other 3 differ in ways because of what they remember. I don’t believe any of this in any way makes the stories false. I realize it doesn’t make them accurate either. Just acknowledging that difference in story lines happens when different writers write.
It's not as if they are all saying he said the same thing and they just worded it differently based on their understanding. Best case scenario if one of them is right about his last words the others are wrong. You also seem to be making the assumption that the writers of these stories are basing it off of their own memory as witnesses to event. There is no reason to make that assumption and good reason to think these are not first hand accounts.
 
Thread starter #145
Even with facts / proof / evidence a jury / judge still has to determine if it’s convincing to them or not. We don’t always agree with their verdict, especially if it’s not how we thought / wanted it to be. That didn’t make the crime false or inaccurate.
If you tell me the general theme of the stories remain, that is he died and was resurrected, I think that is true of the stories. If you tell me these are inerrant accounts of what actually happened with no contradictions then we've got a problem.
 
If you tell me the general theme of the stories remain, that is he died and was resurrected, I think that is true of the stories. If you tell me these are inerrant accounts of what actually happened with no contradictions then we've got a problem.
I think I agree. They were all written over a span of time afterwards, so I wouldn’t expect a complete copy cat of any unless it was the same Writer. Where we disagree is the contradictions. Based on the theme if the last several posts, it’s expected, accepted and highly possible that two people will not give identical accounts of anything. Not being identical doesn’t necessarily mean contradictory in the sense of “conflicted” or one must be wrong, it’s simply another Writers perception.
 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV

and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety -- God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory! YLT
Sorry boys.... but another perfect example of forcing Jesus to be God, found in the scriptures. The greek reads, great is the mystery of Godliness, WHO was .....The translators inserted the word God in place of "Who". It is referring to Jesus but the word God is not justified unless your corrupting it on purpose. Again, when you see this over and over, you start to have only a small handful of ambigious verses left, then you realize ...
 
This word "who" ... no indication of God in any of it's uses. Translated as who 158 times and whom 218 times. Never as God. This is blatant corruption.

Part of Speech: Relative Pronoun
Transliteration: hos, hé, ho
Phonetic Spelling: (hos)
Definition: usually rel. who, which, that, also demonstrative this, that
Usage: who, which, what, that.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. pronoun
Definition
usually rel. who, which, that, also demonstrative this, that
NASB Translation
another* (8), any (1), because* (7), deeds* (1), just (1), just* (1), once* (1), one (11), one* (6), other (2), others* (2), same (2), since* (3), so (1), some (7), some* (8), someone (1), such (1), there (1), these (6), these things (3), thing (1), things (4), third (1), this (22), this is what (1), those whom (1), until* (1), what (101), what* (2), whatever (5), whatever* (28), when (9), when* (3), where (1), where* (2), which (404), while* (3), who (158), whoever (4), whoever* (51), whom (218), whomever* (6), whose (38), why* (3).
 
Bible hub, for those who don't know greek;
It does not look like it does here. It has a column for strongs, the greek word, english, etc. And you can click on any to see all other bible uses of a greek word. First you type in the verse fowolled by biblehub. Then when it comes up, click on greek in the upper choices


1 Timothy 3:16
Text Analysis
Go to Parallel Greek
Strong'sGreekEnglishMorphology
2532 [e]Καὶ
kaiAndConj
3672 [e]ὁμολογουμένως
homologoumenōsconfessedly,Adv
3173 [e]μέγα
megagreatAdj-NNS
1510 [e]ἐστὶν
estinisV-PIA-3S
3588 [e]τὸ
totheArt-NNS
3588 [e]τῆς
tēs-Art-GFS
2150 [e]εὐσεβείας
eusebeiasof godlinessN-GFS
3466 [e]μυστήριον·
mystērionmystery:N-NNS
3739 [e]Ὃς
HosWhoRelPro-NMS
5319 [e]ἐφανερώθη
ephanerōthēwas revealedV-AIP-3S
1722 [e]ἐν
eninPrep
4561 [e]σαρκί,
sarki[the] flesh,N-DFS
1344 [e]ἐδικαιώθη
edikaiōthēwas justifiedV-AIP-3S
 
Thread starter #150
I think I agree. They were all written over a span of time afterwards, so I wouldn’t expect a complete copy cat of any unless it was the same Writer. Where we disagree is the contradictions. Based on the theme if the last several posts, it’s expected, accepted and highly possible that two people will not give identical accounts of anything. Not being identical doesn’t necessarily mean contradictory in the sense of “conflicted” or one must be wrong, it’s simply another Writers perception.

Do you think Matthew and Luke were written by the author of Mark? They both contain word for word copies of stories found in Mark.

Not being identical does not necessarily mean contradictory but in this case the accounts are contradictory. Based on your reading of the gospels tell us what Jesus last words were before he died? You can't answer that question in a way that doesn't contradict at least one of the gospel accounts.
 
I think I agree. They were all written over a span of time afterwards, so I wouldn’t expect a complete copy cat of any unless it was the same Writer. Where we disagree is the contradictions. Based on the theme if the last several posts, it’s expected, accepted and highly possible that two people will not give identical accounts of anything. Not being identical doesn’t necessarily mean contradictory in the sense of “conflicted” or one must be wrong, it’s simply another Writers perception.
I wish that were the case. I wish it was without major context contradictions.
 
What we have are 7 so called last words. All varying. All, actually reflective of what the writer wants to convey, what he assumes Jesus said... or what oral tradition was passed on to him and he wrote it. But none of it is correct.... I do believe Jesus has a God, and the writer of your verse, "My God, my God, why have thou forsaken me", would be the assumption I would have of his thoughts, however, Jesus never cried out "in a loud voice". Crucifixion victims died of lack of oxygen. There would be no lungs power to even speak.... not even whisper. Google death by crucifixion because my memory can't recall how to explain it. It was suffocation. Jesus died at the ninth hour, the guards not having broken his legs in order that he suffocate quicker, yet his death was faster because of his prior exhaustion of having been beaten and such leading up to the cross. Crucifixion victims could try to push/ pull up to grab a breath of air which was counter productive that it magnified the pain being that they were nailed, not standing on or grabbing a nail by hand. A breath... not enough air to form a sentence
You are preaching to the Choir brother Gr8.
The authors of the gospels are unfamiliar with crucifixion, Roman Army procedure and protocol, customs, timelines, Law and on and on and on.
 
below does. Perception of individuals. Not uncommon. It doesn’t mean the cross didn’t happen.
Spotlite, are you saying that the people chosen to record the Word of God were not up to the task? Was your God unable to find the right people?
C'mon man, how do you expect us to embrace the claims of the Miraculous and Powers and then accept excuses on why all that involves a God is so un-god-like???
 
To accept only what comports with one's interpretation of reality leaves only the eventual manifest reduction to the self as sole arbiter.

It is the form of all presumption.

It is both the starting point of the old man and his end.
 
That's true.
Its certainly an imperfect process. It all stills boils down to what we are willing to believe or not believe. But facts/proof/evidence is the least imperfect process we as humans have come up with so far.
That's a good point to consider.

Have you ever had your will overridden in regards to what you are willing to believe?
Is it possible? Is it not all that is possible?

"willing to believe"...some phrase, right? At least to me.
 
To accept only what comports with one's interpretation of reality leaves only the eventual manifest reduction to the self as sole arbiter.

It is the form of all presumption.

It is both the starting point of the old man and his end.
In this thread Translation trumps Presumption
 
That's a good point to consider.

Have you ever had your will overridden in regards to what you are willing to believe?
Is it possible? Is it not all that is possible?

"willing to believe"...some phrase, right? At least to me.
Hmmm..... complicated question. The use of the word "willing" is what complicates it.
Ive had my will overidden concerning what I wanted/not wanted to believe.
There are things, mostly about individual people, that I never would have believed that I now believe.
I translate "willing to believe" to "are there things I refuse to believe".
Ive been on the earth too long and traveled too many roads to refuse to believe anything.
 
Spotlite, are you saying that the people chosen to record the Word of God were not up to the task? Was your God unable to find the right people?
C'mon man, how do you expect us to embrace the claims of the Miraculous and Powers and then accept excuses on why all that involves a God is so un-god-like???
No, I didn’t say that at all.
 
No, I didn’t say that at all.
What you said sounded like an excuse as to why the writers words do not match. It seemed that when needed, you equate things which are supposedly of and by a greater power than what is available in this world with worldly things.
If something is Of God, shouldn't it be God-like also? And Constantly, not conveniently.
What is written in the bible is claimed to be THE word of god. Meaning that what is written in that book is exactly the way God absolutely intended it to be. And god chose people to do the job.
In my opinion, any believer that makes an excuse as to why something is incorrect or may be one way or the other because of human error or human ways or human capabilities, is not confident of their beliefs and then I have to question if any of it is indeed god-like and why a god would want or allow it's word to be anything other than EXACTLY as intended.
 
Last edited:
Top