Did Jesus claim to be the messiah?

[atlashunter]

I wonder if Scripture ever revealed the Messiah would be the Son of God? So even if Jesus told the Jews he was the Son of God, did that necessarily mean he was the Messiah?

Many verses after Jesus has revealed he was the Son and many verses before revealed a Messiah was coming. I'm not sure anyone was aware that the Messiah would be the Son.

Think they were looking more at the Davidic line of paternity.

 

[spurrs and racks]

I seem to remember passages where he hints at it but I don’t recall him coming right out and claiming it.

without question

 

[atlashunter]

http://www.jewfaq.org/m/mashiach.htm

If that's the mark of the messiah then Jesus missed the mark which would explain why we have the predictions of him coming back and finishing the job of fulfilling those prophecies. The problem is "just wait and see" could be said of any dead claimant and after 2,000 years of no return the prophecy has grown a bit stale. It's already twice as long as the 1,000 year peace he was supposed to establish.

 

[bullethead]

If that's the mark of the messiah then Jesus missed the mark which would explain why we have the predictions of him coming back and finishing the job of fulfilling those prophecies. The problem is "just wait and see" could be said of any dead claimant and after 2,000 years of no return the prophecy has grown a bit stale. It's already twice as long as the 1,000 year peace he was supposed to establish.

Yes, and the "wait and see" excuse does not fit within the Jewish timeline at all.
Jesus was a Jew. He was not lobbying for a new religion around him.

 

[bullethead]

Israel can you explain what the verses mean that I posted and you liked?

 

[atlashunter]

Yes, and the "wait and see" excuse does not fit within the Jewish timeline at all.
Jesus was a Jew. He was not lobbying for a new religion around him.

CS Lewis argued that Jesus was either the lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Bart Ehrman has posited the additional possibility of legend meaning the stories about who he was and what he said are fabrications. Richard Carrier has argued that he probably didn't exist at all. If I had a time machine my first stop would probably be Judea in the time of Jesus to know the true story of what was going on at the time and who this person really was. No matter which of those possibilities is true it would be mind blowing.

 

[bullethead]

I honestly am convinced a very charismatic teacher and apocalyptic preacher was around in Judea at that time. I also am 100% convinced that there were many like him and many others more mild and more wild. They all had followers.
In Jesus's case I do believe that he talked of the Father and of the Son but that was what the majority of Jews did. They were all "sons of the Father".
I think Jesus challenged the current ways the religion was headed and warned of the consequences. At times he made the religious leaders look like fools because Jesus was more versed in the old school Judiasm than they were. Remember Judaism then was no different than any of today's current religions are now with many splinter groups, branches and denominations. There was ALWAYS someone building the better religious mouse trap. Jesus stuck to and taught and preached the old school stuff because, well, he was a Jew that was raised and taught that way.
I absolutely in no way am convinced that he was a God in the flesh. The Torah following Jews thought there was no way their God would lower himself into human form. And the Son(s) of God was them. He was the Father of them all. Still do today.
Jesus did not want, ask for or command anyone to start an entirely new religion that centered around him. He mentioned many times that he was only able to do what he did because of God not in place of God or because he was God.
Others used him after his death to take his followers into a different direction than the Torah. No different than what more modern religions do today and have done since the beginning of worship.

 

[1gr8bldr]

I honestly am convinced a very charismatic teacher and apocalyptic preacher was around in Judea at that time. I also am 100% convinced that there were many like him and many others more mild and more wild. They all had followers.
In Jesus's case I do believe that he talked of the Father and of the Son but that was what the majority of Jews did. They were all "sons of the Father".
I think Jesus challenged the current ways the religion was headed and warned of the consequences. At times he made the religious leaders look like fools because Jesus was more versed in the old school Judiasm than they were. Remember Judaism then was no different than any of today's current religions are now with many splinter groups, branches and denominations. There was ALWAYS someone building the better religious mouse trap. Jesus stuck to and taught and preached the old school stuff because, well, he was a Jew that was raised and taught that way.
I absolutely in no way am convinced that he was a God in the flesh. The Torah following Jews thought there was no way their God would lower himself into human form. And the Son(s) of God was them. He was the Father of them all. Still do today.
Jesus did not want, ask for or command anyone to start an entirely new religion that centered around him. He mentioned many times that he was only able to do what he did because of God not in place of God or because he was God.
Others used him after his death to take his followers into a different direction than the Torah. No different than what more modern religions do today and have done since the beginning of worship.

Moses was not able to enter into the promised land because he failed to give God the credit, esteeming him as holy, but rather had adopted an attitude of my power, when he said "must WE bring water from this rock". Contrary to what he should have said and often did prior to, something like, stand fast and behold what God will do before you. But Jesus, was careful not to claim any power from within himself or by himself.

 

[Israel]

Israel can you explain what the verses mean that I posted and you liked?

I "liked" very much that you posted them. That there you saw something in them noteworthy, and even if to your mind contradictory of certain matters seemingly embraced by "christianity" at large.



In one sense (to me) it seems you find a counterpoint (at least in some of the posts). I find this..."likeable". And if you would be willing to take the smallest trip in consideration of what and how "like" works in a man toward another in his expression, more might be discovered than batting around a few verses. (Which I do not consider fruitless, but simply not the deeper matter)

So it is the matter of both posting what is posted, but more the thing that is not unwilling to appear (in some way) contradictory.

A few days ago I showed my second grade great granddaughter how to use a multiplication table in a book she asked me about. She's just learning her math, and is OK at it, but still prone to making the most novice of mistakes. Not paying attention to subtraction vs addition signs on many of her tests. It becomes apparent in many cases she is answering "by rote", prompted by appearances of certain numbers with which she is in part familiar...but not stopping to see the "sign" that describes their relationship in this particular situation. Seeing a 4 and a 3 causes her to sometimes answer 7, but when the sign is pointed out to be a "-" and that she has been wrong, and h just answering according to her previous (and first) introduction to "operations" through addition, she finds now each and every "problem" requires greater attention.

First addition is taught...but not only addition can be done. Not only addition...is done. And I easily sympathize as I do remember getting all of my own answers wrong many years ago on a subtraction test. I didn't get at all how 3 and 4 related...4 was "itself" and 3 was not 4, therefore taking 3 away from 4 left 4 as it was...untouched. Obviously the deeper concept of math speaking to and for relative amounts (symbolized by "numbers") was completely lost on me.

So, maybe I was all wrong in showing her "how to use" a multiplication table, for unless she "gets" the concept how numbers affect one another when multiplied, she could just, by rote, find an intersection on a table for answer. (But...unless she "gets" the concept, she will always be limited to answering only to the limit of the size of the table available to her)

The table is not wrong...but the table is very limited. But if the concept is grasped, then any number(s) can be dealt with. Time will tell how far she goes in math.

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but God"


"I am the good shepherd"

Contradictory? Or perfect in the assigned relationship?

One says he wants salvation but is quite confident in himself of having kept "from his youth" the commandments. He is a knower of what good is, and feels free to assign it. And is rebuffed, or at least "put to the question".

To what is completely lost, astray, buffeted in its isolation and despair of either knowing or being able to accomplish anything "good"...a shepherd appears. And he is good, for his appearing to what is lost in such isolation and despair, seeing one looking for him (whom, to his own appraisal of his "moral" estate is all that would not merit being sought at all)...he does not have to be told by anyone the one who finds him, in his specifically looking for him, is good.

That anything at all would want to be "with him" as he is, speaks of an exceeding goodness he may not necessarily understand in fullness, but he is beginning to grasp a concept.

Jesus knows precisely how to speak to what yet may be tricked by presumption of its own goodness...and even among what calls itself "christian" "I have the right God...therefore I am a right kind of person!" and do itself further harm; and how to speak to what knows it needs comfort and knows it only merits condemnation.

To one he will not appear as good, for he will come in rebuke of their rote repetitions to themselves of their own goodness.

"One thing thou lackest" He said to the man who had previously declared him "good master". And the man did not like hearing it to the point that he went away ...sad. Now how "good" to his appearance...was the good master? But...such a word that may even provoke strongest opposition (to walking away) and sadness...if left to its work of deepest despair of oneself...can work. To the then showing of a "good shepherd" appearing to what knows it can do "nothing of itself"...to save.

Yes, I like very much this post of yours:

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

And am glad for whatever you may see in it that caused you to remember, and find it.

 

[1gr8bldr]

I honestly am convinced a very charismatic teacher and apocalyptic preacher was around in Judea at that time. I also am 100% convinced that there were many like him and many others more mild and more wild. They all had followers.
.

Imagine the extent of the embellishments that would be told about the Messiah after the fact. it would grow to almost unbelievable. i use that word Messiah, not assuming it is applied to Jesus, but rather to anyone whom made the claim, but also did miracles to prove he was the one. This in itself has hindered the gospel

 

[bullethead]

I "liked" very much that you posted them. That there you saw something in them noteworthy, and even if to your mind contradictory of certain matters seemingly embraced by "christianity" at large.



In one sense (to me) it seems you find a counterpoint (at least in some of the posts). I find this..."likeable". And if you would be willing to take the smallest trip in consideration of what and how "like" works in a man toward another in his expression, more might be discovered than batting around a few verses. (Which I do not consider fruitless, but simply not the deeper matter)

So it is the matter of both posting what is posted, but more the thing that is not unwilling to appear (in some way) contradictory.

A few days ago I showed my second grade great granddaughter how to use a multiplication table in a book she asked me about. She's just learning her math, and is OK at it, but still prone to making the most novice of mistakes. Not paying attention to subtraction vs addition signs on many of her tests. It becomes apparent in many cases she is answering "by rote", prompted by appearances of certain numbers with which she is in part familiar...but not stopping to see the "sign" that describes their relationship in this particular situation. Seeing a 4 and a 3 causes her to sometimes answer 7, but when the sign is pointed out to be a "-" and that she has been wrong, and h just answering according to her previous (and first) introduction to "operations" through addition, she finds now each and every "problem" requires greater attention.

First addition is taught...but not only addition can be done. Not only addition...is done. And I easily sympathize as I do remember getting all of my own answers wrong many years ago on a subtraction test. I didn't get at all how 3 and 4 related...4 was "itself" and 3 was not 4, therefore taking 3 away from 4 left 4 as it was...untouched. Obviously the deeper concept of math speaking to and for relative amounts (symbolized by "numbers") was completely lost on me.

So, maybe I was all wrong in showing her "how to use" a multiplication table, for unless she "gets" the concept how numbers affect one another when multiplied, she could just, by rote, find an intersection on a table for answer. (But...unless she "gets" the concept, she will always be limited to answering only to the limit of the size of the table available to her)

The table is not wrong...but the table is very limited. But if the concept is grasped, then any number(s) can be dealt with. Time will tell how far she goes in math.

"Why do you call me good? There is none good but God"


"I am the good shepherd"

Contradictory? Or perfect in the assigned relationship?

One says he wants salvation but is quite confident in himself of having kept "from his youth" the commandments. He is a knower of what good is, and feels free to assign it. And is rebuffed, or at least "put to the question".

To what is completely lost, astray, buffeted in its isolation and despair of either knowing or being able to accomplish anything "good"...a shepherd appears. And he is good, for his appearing to what is lost in such isolation and despair, seeing one looking for him (whom, to his own appraisal of his "moral" estate is all that would not merit being sought at all)...he does not have to be told by anyone the one who finds him, in his specifically looking for him, is good.

That anything at all would want to be "with him" as he is, speaks of an exceeding goodness he may not necessarily understand in fullness, but he is beginning to grasp a concept.

Jesus knows precisely how to speak to what yet may be tricked by presumption of its own goodness...and even among what calls itself "christian" "I have the right God...therefore I am a right kind of person!" and do itself further harm; and how to speak to what knows it needs comfort and knows it only merits condemnation.

To one he will not appear as good, for he will come in rebuke of their rote repetitions to themselves of their own goodness.

"One thing thou lackest" He said to the man who had previously declared him "good master". And the man did not like hearing it to the point that he went away ...sad. Now how "good" to his appearance...was the good master? But...such a word that may even provoke strongest opposition (to walking away) and sadness...if left to its work of deepest despair of oneself...can work. To the then showing of a "good shepherd" appearing to what knows it can do "nothing of itself"...to save.

Yes, I like very much this post of yours:




And am glad for whatever you may see in it that caused you to remember, and find it.

"Israel can you EXPLAIN WHAT THE VERSES MEAN that I posted and you liked?"

 

[gemcgrew]

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

 

[Israel]

"Israel can you EXPLAIN WHAT THE VERSES MEAN that I posted and you liked?"

No.

 

[bullethead]

No.

Thanks.
Can anyone else?

 

[StriperAddict]

You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

In his lifetime, yes, His message came primarily for the Jews. But because of the cross and resurrection it became a message for all mankind.

 

[StriperAddict]

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Simply put, our goodness apart from his indwelling is nothing but rags. They "look good" to all and get the praise of men, but God alone has the corner on goodness.
But don't park there.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, GOODNESS etc., are what the bible calls the fruit of the Spirit, as in the sometimes witnessed but always available byproduct of faith.
Sidebar: Note the word sometimes. A believer is not God, and grows in their faith to realize who they belong to, and by the union that "good" stuff sometimes comes. It's a life of faith and dependence.

 

[StriperAddict]

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

The crying of Christ reminds me of his tears before raising up Lazarus, his humanity shown in the empathy he had to the grieving family around him.
All the rest point to his earthly mission (cross) mixed with his divinity (resurrection) and that his good life was well pleasing to the Father, even unto death for those needing his life (from sin and death). The obedience part shows his humanity further, even when he took his cry of the pain of the cross to his Father. There's many that do not believe that Christ was fully human while fully Lord/Messiah, perhaps these verses were put to shed some truth to that.
I know I am personally affected by this "man of sorrows", and who suffered every temptation and endured the cross, because of the joy of bringing us to him was the big pic after all.

Just my reflections on these. Q&A enjoyed and appreciated. One of the better discussions here, thanks ya'll

 

[bullethead]

In his lifetime, yes, His message came primarily for the Jews. But because of the cross and resurrection it became a message for all mankind.

Jesus said We worship.
Was he worshipping himself?

 

[bullethead]

Simply put, our goodness apart from his indwelling is nothing but rags. They "look good" to all and get the praise of men, but God alone has the corner on goodness.
But don't park there.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, GOODNESS etc., are what the bible calls the fruit of the Spirit, as in the sometimes witnessed but always available byproduct of faith.
Sidebar: Note the word sometimes. A believer is not God, and grows in their faith to realize who they belong to, and by the union that "good" stuff sometimes comes. It's a life of faith and dependence.

A believer is not God, nor is Jesus by his own admittance that only God is good and that he (jesus) is not good.

 

[bullethead]

The crying of Christ reminds me of his tears before raising up Lazarus, his humanity shown in the empathy he had to the grieving family around him.
All the rest point to his earthly mission (cross) mixed with his divinity (resurrection) and that his good life was well pleasing to the Father, even unto death for those needing his life (from sin and death). The obedience part shows his humanity further, even when he took his cry of the pain of the cross to his Father. There's many that do not believe that Christ was fully human while fully Lord/Messiah, perhaps these verses were put to shed some truth to that.
I know I am personally affected by this "man of sorrows", and who suffered every temptation and endured the cross, because of the joy of bringing us to him was the big pic after all.

Just my reflections on these. Q&A enjoyed and appreciated. One of the better discussions here, thanks ya'll

Who was Jesus praying to? Himself?