Jesus never existed

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#614 Dec 12, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Special Messiah? Wow! You never cease to amaze me with some of your explanations, with all due respect (smile).
That’s it?! You mean you think there is nothing special about the prophesied Messiah. Funny you don’t because Jews DO!

The definition of “special” is:
1: distinguished by some unusual quality; especially: being in some way superior <our special blend>
2 : held in particular esteem <a special friend>
3 a: readily distinguishable from others of the same category

I would say that “special” is an appropriate word for “the” Messiah. Yes?! lol!

NEXT!
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Yes, it could very well be a whole new subject, but it is also relevant to why the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, right (smile)?
Then start a new thread.
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Okay, but also in the Hebrew language, this word does not mean Christ either, right (smile).
LMAO! Yes, I would agree, particularly since “Christ” is not a Hebrew word. However, Christ refers to the Hebrew Messiah—Right?! lol!
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Please know that Jesus only warned His disciple not to be deceived. And the reason He did this was because Jesus knew that “many” would come in His name and claimed that “He”(not they) was the Christ, according to the scripture, in my humble opinion (smile).
Wrong! The warning part is that Jesus said others would come in His name. He warned that others would come claiming to be Him.(smile)
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Yes, the word Christ did not exist until the 17th century. However, neither did the word Jesus, since we know that the letter “J” did not exist until the 17th century also (smile).
Thank you for supporting my position regarding the word “Christ”. After all, we all know that Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous and refers to the Messiah, Yeshua—Right? So, obviously, like “Christ”, it’s understood that Jesus refers to the Messiah. Feel free to support my arguments at any time (smile).
Pray to Zeus

Auburndale, FL

#615 Dec 12, 2009
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one bit of evidence He didn't exist.
Not one bit of evidence that the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't exist, so he MUST -- RIGHT! For that matter, there is no evidence supporting the non-existence of fairies, gnomes, unicorns, or the tooth fairy, so Wayne, using your logic, they clearly all are real.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#616 Dec 12, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Special Messiah? Wow! You never cease to amaze me with some of your explanations, with all due respect (smile).
That’s it?! You mean you think there is nothing special about the prophesied Messiah. Funny you don’t because Jews DO!

The definition of “special” is:
1: distinguished by some unusual quality; especially: being in some way superior <our special blend>
2 : held in particular esteem <a special friend>
3 a: readily distinguishable from others of the same category

I would say that “special” is an appropriate word for “the” Messiah. Yes?! lol!

NEXT!
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Yes, it could very well be a whole new subject, but it is also relevant to why the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, right (smile)?
Then start a new thread.
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Okay, but also in the Hebrew language, this word does not mean Christ either, right (smile).
LMAO! Yes, I would agree, particularly since “Christ” is not a Hebrew word. However, Christ refers to the Hebrew Messiah—Right?! lol!
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Please know that Jesus only warned His disciple not to be deceived. And the reason He did this was because Jesus knew that “many” would come in His name and claimed that “He”(not they) was the Christ, according to the scripture, in my humble opinion (smile).
Wrong! The warning part is that Jesus said others would come in His name. He warned that others would come claiming to be Him.(smile)
gundee123 wrote:
......<quoted text>
Yes, the word Christ did not exist until the 17th century. However, neither did the word Jesus, since we know that the letter “J” did not exist until the 17th century also (smile).
Thank you for supporting my position regarding the word “Christ”. After all, we all know that Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous and refers to the Messiah, Yeshua—Right? So, obviously, like “Christ”, it’s understood that Jesus refers to the Messiah. Feel free to support my arguments at any time (smile).
gundee123 wrote:
........<quoted text>
Again, I conceded that when Jesus explicitly said,“I who speak to you am He,” it was “very likely” that He was referring to Himself as the Messiah. However, I did not argue that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Messiah at Mat 24:5, but rather warning His disciples that “many” would claimed that He was the Christ, right (smile).
True! But I explained how your Matthew 24:5 argument is false notwithstanding.

Just spinning your wheels again.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#617 Dec 12, 2009
(continued from above)
gundee123 wrote:
........<quoted text>
With all due respect, I am cognizant that it might be too difficult for you to see this issue from any perspective other than what you currently believe. And I have absolutely no problem with that. However, I most respectfully submit that my interpretation is not based on your belief, but rather what the scripture actually says, in my humble opinion (smile).
The problem is that reasonable people don’t see it the way you do because a plain reading of Matthew 24:5 shows that Jesus was warning His disciples about future false Messiahs. He was not contradicting His declaration in John 4:25 that He is the Messiah as you claim. lol!
gundee123 wrote:
........<quoted text>
Okay, if I had said,“Show me in the scripture where Jesus explicitly said,“I am God’s Son,” would you consider this to also be a frivolous game, or would you simply cite John 10:36,” if you do not mind my asking? And if you would do the latter, then this would explain this “frivolous game” comment that you have made a few times, with all due respect (smile)?
OK!(wink)
gundee123 wrote:
........<quoted text>
Again, when you try to reduce the argument to this, then you must also concede that the name “Jesus” is not Hebrew either, right (lol)?
Yes!
gundee123 wrote:
........<quoted text>
With all due respect, you’ve accepted my challenge, but have not been able to overcome it using the bible as the proof text, in my humble opinion (smile).
Again, your challenge if futile and frivolous since Jesus could have not possible said the word “Christ” since it wasn’t invented until the 17th century. Just spinning your wheels again!(smile)
Listen To This

Prestonsburg, KY

#618 Dec 13, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there, Listen to This, and welcome to this discussion. Please know that I am not trying to argue anyone out of being who He is, but rather sharing my interpretation of what I have read, studied, and researched. And I am well aware that I hold the minority opinion in this matter. But please know that the truth is not based on the most popular opinion, right (smile).
<quoted text>
Yes, I totally agree that the truth is not only timeless, but also universal and self evident. Also, the truth is consistent with reality and independent of what people either believe or think that they know, right (smile)?
Gundee, have you ever considered that there may be more to Jesus than you know right now? As far as you being in the minority, I'd say that on Topix your opinion runs about half and half, or so, with the opposite opinion--like, mine being the opposite opinion.
Yes, the truth is consistent with reality. But, is it possible for there to be reality that one does not yet see, or understand, that has been there, or is to yet be found?
I believe, too, that the truth is consistent with those who find it, and waiting to be discovered by those who have not yet found it. Just because those who have not yet found it may not believe it or understand it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I believe that also, to find the truth, we must look for it in a way in which it can be found.

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#619 Dec 13, 2009
Xcaliber wrote:
That’s it?! You mean you think there is nothing special about the prophesied Messiah. Funny you don’t because Jews DO!
“No,” this is not what I mean. What I mean is that the Jews were looking for a natural-born male child to come, not a “special” God-man to appear from the union of a woman and God seeds, with all due respect (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
The definition of “special” is:
1: distinguished by some unusual quality; especially: being in some way superior <our special blend>
2 : held in particular esteem <a special friend>
3 a: readily distinguishable from others of the same category
I would say that “special” is an appropriate word for “the” Messiah. Yes?! lol!
NEXT!
Yes, I agree that the word “special” is an appropriate word for the “God-man” Messiah whom you believe is Jesus. Now, let us see what the definition of a God-man is:

1. Jesus Christ.
2.(lowercase ) a being who possesses the combined attributes of a deity and of a human; demigod.

So, as you can see, it appears that you are claiming that the Jews were waiting for Messiah who would be a God-man, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
Then start a new thread.
If you would be so kind, you start the thread and please explain why you believe that the Jews was waiting for a “special” God-man, yet rejected Him when He appeared (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
LMAO! Yes, I would agree, particularly since “Christ” is not a Hebrew word. However, Christ refers to the Hebrew Messiah—Right?! lol!
According to the Hebrew lexicon,“No,” Christ does not refer to any Messiah. However, according to the Greek lexicon,“Yes,” He does. So, if you were to decide based on both lexicons, then you just might become a skeptic, too (lol).
Xcaliber wrote:
Wrong! The warning part is that Jesus said others would come in His name. He warned that others would come claiming to be Him.(smile)
Okay, let’s see if what you are claiming make grammatical sense. According to you,“Jesus said others would come in His name,” i.e.,“For many will come in my name.” So, we both agree that this is the proper interpretation, right? However, you also said,“Jesus warned that others, i.e.,“many,” would come claiming to be “Him.” And this is where we disagree.

After all, contrary to your claim, Jesus never used the word “him, they, or any other pronoun that would refer to a third person’s claim to be Him at Mat 24:5. Thus, your argument is not grammatically correct, in my humble opinion, because Jesus did not say that “others,”[which would be third person plural] would claim to be Him, but rather that “others would come in His name.”

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#620 Dec 13, 2009
.....Besides, Mat 24:5 clearly reveals that Jesus used the first person singular pronoun, i.e.,“I,” in this sentence. Now, according to the rules of grammar in regards to pronoun/antecedent agreement, a pronoun must agree in number and gender to the antecedent (noun) it follows. And in this case, the antecedent is the word “many,” right? If so, then the pronoun that would agree with this antecedent would be “they,” right? However, Jesus did not properly agree the word “many” with the correct pronoun, which was “they.” Perhaps, this was simply because Jesus did not have a full grasp of the English language either (lol). Thus, you might just simply feel that you should put the correct Jesus’ grammar by placing the true meaning in Jesus’ mouth, and then claim that I am playing a “frivolous game,” right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
Thank you for supporting my position regarding the word “Christ”. After all, we all know that Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous and refers to the Messiah, Yeshua—Right? So, obviously, like “Christ”, it’s understood that Jesus refers to the Messiah. Feel free to support my arguments at any time (smile).
Please know that there is a big difference in changing the spelling of a word from one language to another versus the changing of the meaning of a word from one language to another. Simply put, the meaning of a word should not change from one language to another. However, this sometimes happens simply because there might not be a word in the language that it is translated “to or from” that will adequately define the word being used. Thus, the true meaning of the original word is sometimes lost. Also, we much be on look out for exegetical changes.

So, with this in mind, I most respectfully submit that when the Jews were waiting for a future Messiah, they were not expecting him to be a God-man. However, Christ is a God-man, and thus the Jews rejected Him, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
True! But I explained how your Matthew 24:5 argument is false notwithstanding.
Just spinning your wheels again.
With all due respect, what you did was change what Mat 24:5 actually said by substituting the word “they” for the word “I” in order to support your position. Now, once and for all,“Do Jesus ever explicitly say that “anyone” would claim to be Him in this verse,” if you do not mind my asking? And if you say,“Yes,” then I challenge you to cite the explicitly “third person pronoun” that He used to do such a thing, if you would be so kind. And if you cannot meet this challenge, perhaps, it is not I who is spinning wheels (smile).
&#8195;

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#621 Dec 13, 2009
Listen To This wrote:
Gundee, have you ever considered that there may be more to Jesus than you know right now?
Of course (smile).
Listen To This wrote:
As far as you being in the minority, I'd say that on Topix your opinion runs about half and half, or so, with the opposite opinion--like, mine being the opposite opinion.
Perhaps, but I welcome opposing views, for I most respectfully submit that different points of view make interesting, insightful, and thought-provoking discussions possible. After all, when two people always share the same opinions, then one of the opinions isn’t needed (smile).
Listen To This wrote:
Yes, the truth is consistent with reality. But, is it possible for there to be reality that one does not yet see, or understand, that has been there, or is to yet be found?
Yes. And this is what can is often referred to as a truth that is outside a person’s circumference of awareness. But instead of researching this truth, some people simply choose to minimize, marginalize, ignore, or even attack others who suggest it. And the primary reason that people do this is simply because that “truth” is either outside of or contradict their “belief system” with all due respect (smile).
Listen To This wrote:
I believe, too, that the truth is consistent with those who find it, and waiting to be discovered by those who have not yet found it.
Well, I think that the truth cannot be found, it has to be realized. In other words, this is when a person is awakened to a new reality that is consistent with self evident, universal, and timeless principles, in my humble opinion.
Listen To This wrote:
Just because those who have not yet found it may not believe it or understand it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I believe that also, to find the truth, we must look for it in a way in which it can be found.
Okay, I most respectfully submit that “beliefs” have absolutely nothing to do with the truth. In fact, a belief is simply an “unverified thought,” in my humble opinion. Thus, no matter how honest and sincere we are in believing that something is true, this does not (in any way) change the factual realities, right (smile)?

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#622 Dec 13, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No,” this is not what I mean. What I mean is that the Jews were looking for a natural-born male child to come, not a “special” God-man to appear from the union of a woman and God seeds, with all due respect (smile).
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree that the word “special” is an appropriate word for the “God-man” Messiah whom you believe is Jesus. Now, let us see what the definition of a God-man is:
1. Jesus Christ.
2.(lowercase ) a being who possesses the combined attributes of a deity and of a human; demigod.
So, as you can see, it appears that you are claiming that the Jews were waiting for Messiah who would be a God-man, right (smile)?
What do you mean “the Jews”? Not all Jews even those who practice Judaism believe in the concept of a Messiah—even today. In other words, the concept of a Messiah is being debated even among Jews. Notwithstanding, however, there were plenty of Jews in Jesus’ day who believed Him to be the promised Messiah, including Pharisees.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would be so kind, you start the thread and please explain why you believe that the Jews was waiting for a “special” God-man, yet rejected Him when He appeared (smile).
Lame!
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Hebrew lexicon,“No,” Christ does not refer to any Messiah. However, according to the Greek lexicon,“Yes,” He does. So, if you were to decide based on both lexicons, then you just might become a skeptic, too (lol).
Are you telling me the word “Christ” appears in the Hebrew lexicon? After all, YOU SAID,“According to the Hebrew lexicon”, which indicates that you’re claiming the word “Christ” appears in the Hebrew lexicon. Once again, Hebrew lexicons are only concerned with the Old Testament. Therefore it stands to reason that since the word “Christ” is not a Hebrew word (and was not a word until the 17th century) it will not be found in a Hebrew lexicon. So your argument here is disingenuous to say the least. So attempting to invalidate the word “Christ” by saying “Christ” does not refer to any Messiah according to the Hebrew lexicon is laughable.

However, the word Messiah does appear in the Peshitta at every place the word Christ appears in the English New Testament because the Peshitta is a Hebrew version of the New Testament—Right? So again, the word “Christ” is simply a result of a 17th century decision to change the spelling of “Crist” to be more in line with it’s Greek (Khristos) and Latin (Christus) and thus became an English word. So read the Peshitta if it makes you feel better. lol!

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#623 Dec 13, 2009
(continued from above)
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, let’s see if what you are claiming make grammatical sense. According to you,“Jesus said others would come in His name,” i.e.,“For many will come in my name.” So, we both agree that this is the proper interpretation, right? However, you also said,“Jesus warned that others, i.e.,“many,” would come claiming to be “Him.” And this is where we disagree.
After all, contrary to your claim, Jesus never used the word “him, they, or any other pronoun that would refer to a third person’s claim to be Him at Mat 24:5. Thus, your argument is not grammatically correct, in my humble opinion, because Jesus did not say that “others,”[which would be third person plural] would claim to be Him, but rather that “others would come in His name.”
Better yet, let’s see if you make sense!

In your Posts 589 you said,“Yes, I accept that Jesus was “very likely” claiming to be the “Messiah”(not Christ) at John 4:25”. Since the word “Christ” in Matthew 24:5 is the English rendering of the Hebrew word “Messiah” it stands to reason that in order to accept your view of Matthew 24:5, we would have to believe that Jesus contradicted His claim according to John 4:25 to be the Messiah. In other words, we can legitimately substitute “Messiah” for “Christ” in Matthew 24:5—Right?

In fact, it’s well understood that “the Christ” and Messiah refer to Jesus. According to the Greek Interlinear, the Greek word for Christ in Matthew 24:5 is “christos”(Strong’s # G5547), which means “the anointed”, which is given the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah” and is meant to refer to the Hebrew Messiah.

What’s even more fraudulent about your argument is that in order for it to be legitimate, one must believe that Jesus was telling His own disciples to not believe that He is the “Christ”/Messiah. Obviously, the ridiculousness of such a claim only proves your interpretation of Matthew 24:5 that much more absurd. It is clearly understood that Jesus’ disciples all believed that He was/is the Hebrew Messiah prophesied about in the Hebrew scriptures. Once again, I must use “Messiah” because it’s obvious that Jesus disciples would not have referred to Him as “the Christ” since the word “Christ” was not invented until the 17th century. Accordingly, Jesus would have never warned his disciples that many would come in His name saying,“I am the Christ”. Rather, Jesus would have said,“I am the Messiah”. In fact, again, the Aramaic New Testament (the Peshitta) states that Jesus said,“I am the Messiah”. Thus, again, in order for your interpretation of Matthew 24:5 to be correct, we would have to accept that Jesus contradicted His claim to be the Messiah, which is a ridiculous proposition.

Accordingly, is it your contention that Matthew 24:5 contradicts Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah according to John 4:25?

Let’s look at this question from a Christian theological perspective because I know that you want to ignore the fact that Christ and Messiah mean the same thing in Christian theology and would rather inject frivolous arguments, such as the word “Christ” doesn’t appear in the Hebrew lexicon. lol!

Also, don’t be childish and petty by responding that Matthew 24:5 says “Christ”, not Messiah, since you have already admitted that Jesus could not have possibly said “Christ” since it didn’t become a word until the 17th century—Right?

“King of Kings”

Since: Jul 08

US Bible belt

#624 Dec 13, 2009
I am the man you refer to as Jesus and I have the plan that saves everything and everyone. It is you who keep rejecting me not the other way around.My wake is overflowing with miraculous works and my robe is bloody from how you have treated me.

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#625 Dec 13, 2009
Xcaliber wrote:
What do you mean “the Jews”? Not all Jews even those who practice Judaism believe in the concept of a Messiah—even today.
Well, according to the bible, the Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
In other words, the concept of a Messiah is being debated even among Jews. Notwithstanding, however, there were plenty of Jews in Jesus’ day who believed Him to be the promised Messiah, including Pharisees.
Well, If this statement is true, then please cite a passage out of the scripture that will validate your claim, if you would be so kind (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
Lame!
Perhaps (smile)!
Xcaliber wrote:
Are you telling me the word “Christ” appears in the Hebrew lexicon?
“No,” what is am saying is that the word Christ is not in the Hebrew lexicon, and thus, it is not what the word Messiah means, in my humble opinion (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
After all, YOU SAID,“According to the Hebrew lexicon”, which indicates that you’re claiming the word “Christ” appears in the Hebrew lexicon.
“No,” what I was saying was simply that the word Christ “does not appear anywhere in the Hebrew lexicon, and thus, it cannot possible be synonymous with Messiah, in my humble opinion (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
Once again, Hebrew lexicons are only concerned with the Old Testament.
Yes, I agree; and the word Messiah is an OT concept, right (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
Therefore it stands to reason that since the word “Christ” is not a Hebrew word (and was not a word until the 17th century) it will not be found in a Hebrew lexicon.
Yes, and thus, it is not synonymous with the word Messiah (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
So your argument here is disingenuous to say the least.
“No,” not disingenuous but rather factually accurate, in my humble opinion (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
So attempting to invalidate the word “Christ” by saying “Christ” does not refer to any Messiah according to the Hebrew lexicon is laughable.
Well, what is actually laughable is your claim that Christ is the same thing as Messiah, yet the Hebrew text does not validate your claim, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
However, the word Messiah does appear in the Peshitta at every place the word Christ appears in the English New Testament because the Peshitta is a Hebrew version of the New Testament—Right?
Okay,“Why must you ignore the origin (Hebrew lexicon) and in favor of a substitute (Peshitta),” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?......

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#626 Dec 13, 2009
......
Xcaliber wrote:
So again, the word “Christ” is simply a result of a 17th century decision to change the spelling of “Crist” to be more in line with it’s Greek (Khristos) and Latin (Christus) and thus became an English word. So read the Peshitta if it makes you feel better. lol!
Wow! It appears that you would rather discredit the use of the word “Christ” in the bible, than concede that it is not synonymous with the word Messiah, right (lol)?
Xcaliber wrote:
(continued from above)
Better yet, let’s see if you make sense!
In your Posts 589 you said,“Yes, I accept that Jesus was “very likely” claiming to be the “Messiah”(not Christ) at John 4:25”. Since the word “Christ” in Matthew 24:5 is the English rendering of the Hebrew word “Messiah” it stands to reason that in order to accept your view of Matthew 24:5, we would have to believe that Jesus contradicted His claim according to John 4:25 to be the Messiah. In other words, we can legitimately substitute “Messiah” for “Christ” in Matthew 24:5—Right?
“No,” you cannot legitimately say that the word “Christ” is synonymous with “Messiah.” If fact, this is one of my main arguments (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
In fact, it’s well understood that “the Christ” and Messiah refer to Jesus.
On in Christian theology is this well understood, in my humble opinion.
Xcaliber wrote:
According to the Greek Interlinear, the Greek word for Christ in Matthew 24:5 is “christos”(Strong’s # G5547), which means “the anointed”, which is given the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah” and is meant to refer to the Hebrew Messiah.
And according to the Hebrew lexicon,“What does the word “Christ” means,” if you do not mind my asking? Did you say, it is not in the Hebrew lexicon”(smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
What’s even more fraudulent about your argument is that in order for it to be legitimate, one must believe that Jesus was telling His own disciples to not believe that He is the “Christ”/Messiah.
Not once have I ever claim that Jesus told His disciples not to believe that “He is the Christ,” but rather that Jesus warned His disciples not to be “deceived” because “many” would come in His name claiming,“He is the Christ.” So, if I may very respectfully ask,“Is it fraudulent that you are trying to put words in my mouth, with all due respect?
Xcaliber wrote:
Obviously, the ridiculousness of such a claim only proves your interpretation of Matthew 24:5 that much more absurd.
With all due respect, please know that your continuously claims that what I have asserted is absurd, ridiculous, fraudulent, etc, does not (in any way) change what this passage says, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
It is clearly understood that Jesus’ disciples all believed that He was/is the Hebrew Messiah prophesied about in the Hebrew scriptures.
Well, if this is so obvious, please cite where specifically in the scripture does it substantiate this claim of yours, if you would be so kind (smile).......

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#627 Dec 13, 2009
.......
Xcaliber wrote:
Once again, I must use “Messiah” because it’s obvious that Jesus disciples would not have referred to Him as “the Christ” since the word “Christ” was not invented until the 17th century.
Well, since you are using this Hebrew word (Messiah),“Don’t you think that it is important to try to discern the Hebrew meaning of this word,” if I may very respectfully ask (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
Accordingly, Jesus would have never warned his disciples that many would come in His name saying,“I am the Christ”.
Wow! But this is exactly what the biblical text say. And it appears that you are trying to change what it says simply because this does not agree with your “Christian theology,” right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
Rather, Jesus would have said,“I am the Messiah”. In fact, again, the Aramaic New Testament (the Peshitta) states that Jesus said,“I am the Messiah”. Thus, again, in order for your interpretation of Matthew 24:5 to be correct, we would have to accept that Jesus contradicted His claim to be the Messiah, which is a ridiculous proposition.
Well, I must really give you your props here. After all, you have totally disregarded what the NT (NIV) explicitly says in lieu of what the Peshitta says, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
Accordingly, is it your contention that Matthew 24:5 contradicts Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah according to John 4:25?
“No,” my contention is that Jesus never claimed to be the Christ. After all, I have not claimed that Jesus never claimed to be Messiah. In fact, I explicitly said that it is “very likely” that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
Let’s look at this question from a Christian theological perspective because I know that you want to ignore the fact that Christ and Messiah mean the same thing in Christian theology and would rather inject frivolous arguments, such as the word “Christ” doesn’t appear in the Hebrew lexicon. lol!
Xcaliber wrote:
Also, don’t be childish and petty by responding that Matthew 24:5 says “Christ”, not Messiah, since you have already admitted that Jesus could not have possibly said “Christ” since it didn’t become a word until the 17th century—Right?
Again, you remarks that I am being childish and petty adds absolutely nothing to our discussion. But if it gets you through our debate, then please feel free to make such comments. At any rate, please cite any post whereas I explicitly said that Jesus “could not have possibly said Christ at Mat 24:5, if you would be so kind.“Or is this simply another attempt to try and place words in my mouth,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?
Listen To This

Prestonsburg, KY

#628 Dec 13, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
Yes. And this is what can is often referred to as a truth that is outside a person’s circumference of awareness. But instead of researching this truth, some people simply choose to minimize, marginalize, ignore, or even attack others who suggest it. And the primary reason that people do this is simply because that “truth” is either outside of or contradict their “belief system” with all due respect (smile).
<quoted text>
Well, I think that the truth cannot be found, it has to be realized. In other words, this is when a person is awakened to a new reality that is consistent with self evident, universal, and timeless principles, in my humble opinion.
<quoted text>
Okay, I most respectfully submit that “beliefs” have absolutely nothing to do with the truth. In fact, a belief is simply an “unverified thought,” in my humble opinion. Thus, no matter how honest and sincere we are in believing that something is true, this does not (in any way) change the factual realities, right (smile)?
I know that with our hearts, we "believe unto righteousness." Yet, then, "with our mouths, confession is made unto salvation." Would you agree that we would have to believe something before we accept it as truth? That's how it mostly works, here, unless God has decided to reveal something to someone, like I'd described in a previous post I wrote. In a case like that, the truth is "in our face." This kind of experience doesn't happen to everyone quite like I'd wrote about before. God wants us to go by faith. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. Yet, God reveals things to some people. I believe He does this because He has a specific will for these people, for one thing. Also, there are others who desperately and faithfully pray for these certain people, sometimes. My Grandpaw had great experiences with God. If I told them, or if he did, it doesn't mean that all people would believe it. We have to believe and know for ourselves. Yet, unless God gives you one of those experiences I was talking about, you're about like everyone else. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." You'll have to first believe. Then, if you will invite Jesus into your heart, God will reveal things to you in God's own time, which will make you know that you know that you know--that God is really real. That Jesus Christ is really real.

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#629 Dec 13, 2009
Listen To This wrote:
I know that with our hearts, we "believe unto righteousness." Yet, then, "with our mouths, confession is made unto salvation." Would you agree that we would have to believe something before we accept it as truth?
Okay, why is it important that a person believe something first,” if you do not mind my asking? In other words,“Why would a person accept something as being true before seeing any evidence that would actually support such a proposition?(smile)”
Listen To This wrote:
That's how it mostly works, here, unless God has decided to reveal something to someone, like I'd described in a previous post I wrote. In a case like that, the truth is "in our face." This kind of experience doesn't happen to everyone quite like I'd wrote about before. God wants us to go by faith. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. Yet, God reveals things to some people. I believe He does this because He has a specific will for these people, for one thing.
Well, since you claim that God reveals thing to people, may I very respectfully ask,“When Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to enter into heaven,“What did this literally mean, and then what did this mean from a spiritual perspective”(smile)?
Listen To This wrote:
Also, there are others who desperately and faithfully pray for these certain people, sometimes. My Grandpaw had great experiences with God. If I told them, or if he did, it doesn't mean that all people would believe it. We have to believe and know for ourselves. Yet, unless God gives you one of those experiences I was talking about, you're about like everyone else. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." You'll have to first believe. Then, if you will invite Jesus into your heart, God will reveal things to you in God's own time, which will make you know that you know that you know--that God is really real. That Jesus Christ is really real.
With all due respect,“When a person believe in things that he or she does not understand, then that person will usually suffer as a result of the belief,” in my humble opinion (smile).
Listen To This

Prestonsburg, KY

#630 Dec 13, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, why is it important that a person believe something first,” if you do not mind my asking? In other words,“Why would a person accept something as being true before seeing any evidence that would actually support such a proposition?(smile)”
<quoted text>
Well, since you claim that God reveals thing to people, may I very respectfully ask,“When Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to enter into heaven,“What did this literally mean, and then what did this mean from a spiritual perspective”(smile)?
<quoted text>
With all due respect,“When a person believe in things that he or she does not understand, then that person will usually suffer as a result of the belief,” in my humble opinion (smile).
Spiritually speaking, if we don't believe, we won't receive.
I had once been told (or heard it once, then on a program on TV) that the eye of a needle was a small opening in the walls of cities in those days, wherein people could enter. I was told that this is completely incorrect. So, whose right? One or the other, for sure. I don't know. Some say that it is a literal comment, to be taken literally. You know that a camel, nor hardly anything else can actually go through the eye of a needle. If this is the case, remember that Jesus told a certain rich young man to sell all that he had and give the profits to the poor, and follow Him. The rich young man was troubled by this because he didn't want to give up the things he owned to follow Jesus. Where was his heart? It was in his earthly possessions. "Where our treasure is is where our heart is." If we put things before God, it's not going to get us anywhere with God, because it's sort of like worshipping something over worshipping God. God doesn't want us to put anything before Him. So, spiritually, if we don't put God before anything else in this world, we are not in line with God's will. We spiritually lose so much though, worldly, we have lost very little. The Bible says that a little that the righteous has is better than the riches of many wicked.
No, because if we don't lean to our own understanding, but in all our ways acknowledge God, He will bring many things to pass. We don't understand everything, but we can rest safely in God's keeping. He sees and knows things we don't or can't. Hey, He's God!

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#631 Dec 13, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, according to the bible, the Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah right (smile)?[QUOTE]
Well, also according to the Bible, Jews DID accept Jesus as their Messiah—Right?

[QUOTE who="gundee123"]< quoted text>
Well, If this statement is true, then please cite a passage out of the scripture that will validate your claim, if you would be so kind (smile).
Just Google it! It’s a historical fact that Jews are not in total agreement that a Messiah will come.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No,” what is am saying is that the word Christ is not in the Hebrew lexicon, and thus, it is not what the word Messiah means, in my humble opinion (smile).
Again, the word “Christ” is not in the Hebrew lexicon because it’s not a Hebrew word. It is a foreign word that refers to the Hebrew Messiah—this is an indisputable fact.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No,” what I was saying was simply that the word Christ “does not appear anywhere in the Hebrew lexicon, and thus, it cannot possible be synonymous with Messiah, in my humble opinion (smile).
So are you saying that every foreign translation of the Hebrew scriptures is invalid since the foreign words are not Hebrew words, therefore they cannot possibly be synonymous with Hebrew words? The problem is for your argument is that the Hebrew lexicon is not the deciding factor as to what foreign words mean.(smile)
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree; and the word Messiah is an OT concept, right (smile).
Correct! Which is why Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and thus, it is not synonymous with the word Messiah (smile).[QUOTE]
Wrong again, since the word Christ is given the same meaning as the Hebrew word Messiah just like the various languages around the word use different words to convey the same meaning—Right?

[QUOTE who="gundee123"]< quoted text>
“No,” not disingenuous but rather factually accurate, in my humble opinion (smile).
I disagree! You are clearly not factually accurate!(smile)
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what is actually laughable is your claim that Christ is the same thing as Messiah, yet the Hebrew text does not validate your claim, right (smile)?
And I’m laughing back since you simply cannot accept the fact that the Hebrew lexicon does not determine the whether a foreign word is synonymous with a Hebrew word. Further, Jesus is also called the Messiah, which is in the Hebrew lexicon—Yes! So he is called both the Messiah and Christ, which is the English word most often used to refer to the Hebrew Messiah—Right? lol!
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay,“Why must you ignore the origin (Hebrew lexicon) and in favor of a substitute (Peshitta),” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?......
I’m not ignoring the Hebrew lexicon, I’m just smart enough to understand that English words such as “Christ” or for that matter, Christos”, are not going to be defined in a Hebrew lexicon simply because they are not Hebrew words. However, the are defined elsewhere such as a concordance or expository dictionary, which clearly state While you apparently cannot comprehend this simple truism. Obviously, your position is way outside the understood and accepted meaning of “Christ”.

“Christ is the English term for the Greek …(Khristos) meaning "the anointed one".[1] It is a translation of the Hebrew (Massiah).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#632 Dec 13, 2009
gundee123 wrote:
....... <quoted text>
Wow! But this is exactly what the biblical text say. And it appears that you are trying to change what it says simply because this does not agree with your “Christian theology,” right (smile)?
So are you telling me that Jesus said the word “Christ” even thought this word was not created until the 17th century? lol!
gundee123 wrote:
....... <quoted text>
Well, I must really give you your props here. After all, you have totally disregarded what the NT (NIV) explicitly says in lieu of what the Peshitta says, right (smile)?
Erm…you used the phrase “in lieu of” incorrectly—the phrase means,‘instead of’. You should have expressed your thought in the opposite way you did.(smile)

This comment is interesting since you are totally disregarding the fact that the original Greek scriptures did not use the word “Christ”. Thus, you are apparently willing to accept a 17th century created word (“Christ”) because you believe it helps your argument.(wink). So apparently you are willing to accept the word “Christos” as being a valid synonym for the Hebrew Messiah?(smile)

[QUOTE who="gundee123"].... ... <quoted text>
“No,” my contention is that Jesus never claimed to be the Christ. After all, I have not claimed that Jesus never claimed to be Messiah. In fact, I explicitly said that it is “very likely” that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, right (smile)?
I agree since the word “Christ” was created in the 17th century. This is what I’ve been trying to get through to you. lol! Now, can you go one step further and admit that Jesus must have said “I am the Messiah” in Matthew 24:5 or do you still want to play charades?(smile)
gundee123 wrote:
....... <quoted text>
Again, you remarks that I am being childish and petty adds absolutely nothing to our discussion. But if it gets you through our debate, then please feel free to make such comments. At any rate, please cite any post whereas I explicitly said that Jesus “could not have possibly said Christ at Mat 24:5, if you would be so kind.“Or is this simply another attempt to try and place words in my mouth,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?
I’m only stating the truth! But in the spirit of a friendly debate I will due my best to refrain from such comments.(smile)

Since: Jun 07

Inverness, FL

#633 Dec 14, 2009
Xcaliber wrote:
Just Google it! It’s a historical fact that Jews are not in total agreement that a Messiah will come.
Wow! You make this unsubstantiated claim and then suggest that I google it to see if I can substantiate that it is historical fact (interesting).
Xcaliber wrote:
Again, the word “Christ” is not in the Hebrew lexicon because it’s not a Hebrew word. It is a foreign word that refers to the Hebrew Messiah—this is an indisputable fact.
Yes, I agree with this first sentence. However, when you claim that it is an “indisputable fact” that the word Christ refers to the Hebrew Messiah, evidently you are now speaking to either to your beliefs and/or Christian theology, right (smile)?
Xcaliber wrote:
So are you saying that every foreign translation of the Hebrew scriptures is invalid since the foreign words are not Hebrew words, therefore they cannot possibly be synonymous with Hebrew words?
No, what I am saying is that the word “Christ” as a Greek transliteration of the word Messiah has a different meaning. You see, although both of these words mean “anointed,” the word “Christ” refers to a particular person (God-man), whereas the Hebrew word Messiah does not.

Now, if I can offer you a different example to better illustrate what I am saying, let us look at the original Hebrew word for “hell,” which is “sheol,” and then compare it to the Greek words, which carries three difference meanings, i.e.,“hades, gehenna, and Tartarus.” In other words, while both “sheol and hades” basically mean “the grave,” the Hebrew concept for sheol did not include anything about gehenna and Tartarus in its definition. For instance, this is what it written in the OT at Job 14:13: "If only you would hide me in the grave and conceal me till your anger has passed! If only you would set me a time and then remember me!” Well, I urge you to look up the word “grave” in this passage in the Hebrew lexicon (H-7585) to see what Hebrew word that it’s a transliteration of. In fact, here it is:

“7585 sh'owl sheh-ole' or shol {sheh-ole'}; from 7592; Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:--grave, hell, pit.”

You see, contrary to what many people believe, the word “hell” to the Hebrew simply meant the grave. And this is why Job wanted to hide there, right (smile).

Likewise, although the word Messiah and Christ both mean the anointed, the Hebrew concept of the Messiah was not a reference to any God-man, whereas the Greek concept of the word “Christ” is limited to this definition. Or perhaps, you can name someone other than Jesus who was considered the Christ in the NT and/or Christian theology, if you would be so kind (smile).
Xcaliber wrote:
The problem is for your argument is that the Hebrew lexicon is not the deciding factor as to what foreign words mean.(smile)
Well, with all due respect, the Hebrew lexicon should be the deciding factor as to what “Hebrew” words means in the Hebrew language, right (smile).....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jesus is God 11 min Truth 50
"little lamb" IS A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS 12 min Truth 41
The Divinity of Jesus and his Role 2 hr little lamb 8
Does the Law of God matter? 2 hr little lamb 76
Is Paul a false Apostle? (Sep '13) 3 hr dollarsbill 3,869
Noah’s ark and the rainbow. 3 hr dollarsbill 356
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr Burke Devlin 6,563
*Forgiveness* 5 hr dollarsbill 254
Homosexual acts remain a sin. 13 hr Generation of Vipers 1,784
More from around the web