1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Sep '09 08:252 edits
    Hopefully there may follow some discussion on the subject, for it appears that it is a subject of much controversy. Manny, Whodey, Duecer, Daniel, and the unmentionable one all hold that Christ was God, others like our Muslim friends hold that he was but a prophet. Others that he was simply a teacher and a Rabbi. Some deny his prehuman existence, others that he even a historical personage. The very term 'Christ', is not a mere appellative added to distinguish Jesus from others of the same name; it is an official title and itself comes from the Greek, 'christos', and means anointed one.

    However., before we discuss who Christ was, and i propose to use titles that are referenced from scripture and explore their meaning, such as, the chief agent of life, the son of man, the messiah, etc etc , it is worthy to note what some quite eminent and highly respected individuals have said, regarding the Christ.

    “Jesus of Nazareth . . . is easily the dominant figure in history.”—H. G. Wells, English historian.

    “Christ stands . . . solitary and alone among all the heroes of history.”—Philip Schaff, Swiss-born theologian and historian.

    “It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.

    “A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.

    “As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.

    “Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald

    “For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.

    “Jesus life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.

    “Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.
  2. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    10 Sep '09 10:00
    you list many famous terms written by some eminant people throout recent history, but its to the individual that it must apply, i belive in the bible/ christ/ etc not because of others.
    Seems to me they may express views that i agree with but it is me who belives
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Sep '09 10:202 edits
    Originally posted by stoker
    you list many famous terms written by some eminant people throout recent history, but its to the individual that it must apply, i belive in the bible/ christ/ etc not because of others.
    Seems to me they may express views that i agree with but it is me who belives
    Yes my friend, but you are a Christian, one must remember that there are many who are not, and if they have no respect for the scriptures or no knowledge, then perhaps they may have for some of these eminent men. However the purpose really, is to try to get a clear perspective on who Christ was, for you are aware of the controversies. What i really meant to do, was compile a list of his titles, and then try to establish what these mean! in this way a very broad picture could be established, rather then the narrow little ecclesiastical window that we are want to look through!
  4. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    10 Sep '09 10:35
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Hopefully there may follow some discussion on the subject, for it appears that it is a subject of much controversy. Manny, Whodey, Duecer, Daniel, and the unmentionable one all hold that Christ was God, others like our Muslim friends hold that he was but a prophet. Others that he was simply a teacher and a Rabbi. Some deny his prehuman existence, ...[text shortened]... is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.
    "Hopefully there may follow some discussion on the subject, for it appears that it is a subject of much controversy. Manny, Whodey, Duecer, Daniel, and the unmentionable one all hold that Christ was God..."


    Devil's still in the meaningful details, Robbie. Suggest this coversation begin with a corrected tense of the pivotal intransitive verb... IS, not 'was', which succeeds in immbedding a gratuitous false premise. "Lord Jesus Christ" presents no difficulty whatever but, rather, delineates three timeline distinctions: Christ = His Messiahship fulfilled as prophesied; Jesus = His perfect humanity and undiminished deity in hypostatic union, one uniquely born person forever, as of the First Advent; Lord = Victorious title following the completion of His humanity's substitutionary spiritual death, resurrection, ascension and session... King of Kings, Lord of Lords seated at the right hand of the Father. As co-equal mediator between both parties, God and man, He alone accomplished the grace work of reconciliation.



    P.S. Wondering who "the unmentionable one" might be... the highly respected lightning rod Freaky? Why play games? Name names.


    😀
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Sep '09 10:43
    actually Paps, i was conscious of this when i formed the sentence, and had really intended to write was/is. the unmentionable one is Jaywill, who has excommunicated me because i oppose his views with regard to the deity of the Christ! had it been but 600 years earlier, i am sure he would have tied me to a stake and burnt me for my heresy!

    in your case, your point is well received!

    (Psalm 141:5) . . .Should the righteous one strike me, it would be a loving-kindness; And should he reprove me, it would be oil upon the head,. . .

    🙂
  6. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51426
    10 Sep '09 11:58
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    actually Paps, i was conscious of this when i formed the sentence, and had really intended to write was/is. the unmentionable one is Jaywill, who has excommunicated me because i oppose his views with regard to the deity of the Christ! had it been but 600 years earlier, i am sure he would have tied me to a stake and burnt me for my heresy!

    in you ...[text shortened]... would be a loving-kindness; And should he reprove me, it would be oil upon the head,. . .

    🙂
    the unmentionable one is Jaywill, who has excommunicated me because i oppose his views with regard to the deity of the Christ!

    What a pair of tarts.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Sep '09 12:211 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    [b]the unmentionable one is Jaywill, who has excommunicated me because i oppose his views with regard to the deity of the Christ!

    What a pair of tarts.[/b]
    out of all the virtuous and noble things i post, you pick up on this? i dunno, you showed great promise Noobster, but i dunno, you are being sucked over to the dark side of the force!
  8. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    18217
    10 Sep '09 12:50
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    out of all the virtuous and noble things i post, you pick up on this? i dunno, you showed great promise Noobster, but i dunno, you are being sucked over to the dark side of the force!
    I'm more interested in Einstein. (The quotes sounded like the blurbs on dust-jackets, and likely had as much meaningful content.) As far as I know and despite the pleasing quote Einstein never fell to his knees and accepted Jesus as his personal savior. Do you contend, Robbie, that he will never see heaven? If so, that argues more persuasively against your ideas than anything I could say, and, if not, then why do you bother to advocate an idea with no consequences?
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Sep '09 13:074 edits
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    I'm more interested in Einstein. (The quotes sounded like the blurbs on dust-jackets, and likely had as much meaningful content.) As far as I know and despite the pleasing quote Einstein never fell to his knees and accepted Jesus as his personal savior. Do you contend, Robbie, that he will never see heaven? If so, that argues more persuasively against yo ...[text shortened]... hing I could say, and, if not, then why do you bother to advocate an idea with no consequences?
    if you examine the quote, Einstein states that he was a Jew. Whether he had the opportunity to come into contact with Christ's brothers (those substituting for Christ through a ministry of reconciliation), I have no way of knowing. If not, he shall be resurrected in the forthcoming resurrection, of which all persons who never had the opportunity to learn of Christ shall. It is an aspect not only of Gods love, but his justice also.

    please note TerrierJack, i hold the view that only a select few of mankind shall be with Christ in heaven, the vast majority of mankind shall live on the earth, when God fulfils his original purpose and the earth shall become a paradise. When sin, which is the agent which causes imperfection and death is gone, i see no reason why humans cannot life perpetually without the rigours of ageing. i even tried to establish what causes ageing in the science forum, without success for there is as yet, no known reason why humans age. we cut ourself, the bodies mechanism for healing is put into motion, the cells are replenished, we heal. why this does not go on perpetually, i do not know!

    the quotes are a collage, designed to convey an impression. would one put a Claude Monet picture on a dust jacket?, perhaps, however Monet has meaning for those who know anything about art, to those who dont, he is merely a decorative piece, a print above the fireplace.
  10. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    18217
    10 Sep '09 15:17
    So I'm trying but I don't understand what you are saying - surely Einstein could not have delivered the quote without knowledge of christianity - so what more would he need to learn? Is everyone resurrected? Heaven is an executive perk? Decay is not natural? Why should you adhere when it is the nature of composite things to come apart? (Sounds like wishful thinking to me, Dorothy!)

    "What does not change - is the will to change" - Robert Duncan

    BTW - Jesus - divine or only human?
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Sep '09 15:561 edit
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    So I'm trying but I don't understand what you are saying - surely Einstein could not have delivered the quote without knowledge of christianity - so what more would he need to learn? Is everyone resurrected? Heaven is an executive perk? Decay is not natural? Why should you adhere when it is the nature of composite things to come apart? (Sounds like wishf s not change - is the will to change" - Robert Duncan

    BTW - Jesus - divine or only human?
    ok, let us proceed with clarity, shall we. note what Einstein said, 'I received instruction instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud'. now one could hardly read the scripture without recourse to Christ, could one. Even if one only had the Hebrew portion of scripture, there are many references which would strike one as significant with relation to Christ. This is not knowledge of Christianity, as such, for the Biblical record, is not synonymous with what is practised, by Christians, but of the character of Christ, which made such an impression upon him.

    The scripture indicate that both the righteous and the unrighteous shall be resurrected. Those who knew about God and those who did not. there is only one criteria which may bar someone from the prospect of a resurrection, sin against the Holy Spirit, for it would seem that it is unpardonable. what does this mean? well persons of Christ generation , the Pharisaical religious leaders, both witnessed 'works', of Holy Spirit, in that healing took place by means of Holy Spirit, thus identifying Christ as a person appointed by God, thus they have no excuse for plotting against him, simply because he challenged their position, thus , they sin against the Holy spirit, which is inexcusable.

    I Ancient Israel, only Aaron's sons, the Levities served in a priestly function. This was but a typical representation, of things in heaven (this is a whole discussion in itself, the temple and priestly service). suffice to say, that the whole idea that every good person goes to heaven, has its basis in the doctrine of the immortality of the 'soul'. not in our opinion, a biblical doctrine.

    Christ was a divine person, although not God Almighty.
  12. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    18217
    10 Sep '09 16:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok, let us proceed with clarity, shall we. note what Einstein said, 'I received instruction instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud'. now one could hardly read the scripture without recourse to Christ, could one. Even if one only had the Hebrew portion of scripture, there are many references which would strike one as significant with relat ...[text shortened]... ur opinion, a biblical doctrine.

    Christ was a divine person, although not God Almighty.
    So you're a radical materialist (like Marx and the mormons?) Heaven is just an administrative center? Everyone (even Hitler) is raised bodily to live out a perfect existence on this physical planet (do DC8s and nuclear bombs around volcanoes have anything to do with this? Was John Travolta 9ft tall?) Are you a divine person? (I already know Jaywill is not - tho he is a paid spokesman.) There is no soul? Or the soul is the body which is incorruptible and immortal (in your imagination at least?) You are appointed to be a priest/explainer/future heavenly secretary - so no remedial classes will advance you in the organization? Are you prepared for the hell that my southern baptist neighbors expect you to inhabit? What if they are right? If there is no hell at all and we just dissolve into the ground will your time have been worth it?
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    10 Sep '09 16:56
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    So you're a radical materialist (like Marx and the mormons?) Heaven is just an administrative center? Everyone (even Hitler) is raised bodily to live out a perfect existence on this physical planet (do DC8s and nuclear bombs around volcanoes have anything to do with this? Was John Travolta 9ft tall?) Are you a divine person? (I already know Jaywill is no ...[text shortened]... there is no hell at all and we just dissolve into the ground will your time have been worth it?
    Yoiu should try better to explain yourself instead of just asking rhetoricle questions...
  14. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    18217
    10 Sep '09 17:27
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Yoiu should try better to explain yourself instead of just asking rhetoricle questions...
    I'm trying to understand Robbie. That is why I am asking questions. They are NOT rhetorical. I want real answers. I am merely restating what I think he is saying. If those statements are wrong I expect him to correct them so I can understand. So far, he's fairly incomprehensible or I'm particularly dense. I'm willing to entertain either possibility but I require more evidence to reach a conclusion. Do you have anything to add or are you just tossing (charitably) peanuts?
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    10 Sep '09 17:56
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    I'm trying to understand Robbie. That is why I am asking questions. They are NOT rhetorical. I want real answers. I am merely restating what I think he is saying. If those statements are wrong I expect him to correct them so I can understand. So far, he's fairly incomprehensible or I'm particularly dense. I'm willing to entertain either possibility but I ...[text shortened]... each a conclusion. Do you have anything to add or are you just tossing (charitably) peanuts?
    Well I think Robbie is answering your questions pretty well so I don't know what else he can say.
Back to Top