100 Truths About Jesus: Smoking Gun -- 2
100 Truths About Jesus
- Jesus claimed to be God - John 8:24; 8:56-59 (see Exodus 3:14); 10:30-33.
- Jesus created all things - John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17
- Jesus is before all things - Colossians 1:17
- Jesus is eternal - John 1:1,14; 8:58
- Jesus is honored the same as the Father - John 5:23
- Jesus is prayed to - Acts 7:54-60
- Jesus is worshipped - Matthew 2:2,8,11; 14:33; 28:9,17; John 9:35-37
- Jesus is called God - John 1:1,14; 20:28 Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13
- Jesus is omnipresent - Matt 28:20
- Jesus is with us always - Matthew 28:20
- Jesus is our only mediator between God and ourselves - 1 Tim 2:5
- Jesus is the guarantee of a better covenant - Hebrews 7:22; 8:6
- Jesus said, "I AM the Bread of Life" - John 6:35,41,48,51
- Jesus said, "I AM the Door" - John 10:7,9
- Jesus said, "I AM the Good Shepherd" - John 10:11, 14
- Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6
- Jesus said, "I AM the Light of the world" - John 8:12; 9:5;12:46; Luke 2:32
- Jesus said, "I AM the True Vine" - John 15:1; 15:5
- Jesus said, "I AM the Resurrection and the Life" - John 11:25
- Jesus said, "I AM the First and the Last" - Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13
- Jesus always lives to make intercession for us - Hebrews 7:25
- Jesus cleanses from sin - 1 John 1:9
- Jesus discloses Himself to us - John 14:21
- Jesus draws all men to Himself - John 12:32
- Jesus forgives sins - Matthew 9:1-7; Luke 5:20; 7:48
- Jesus gives eternal life - John 10:28; 5:40
- Jesus gives joy - John 15:11
- Jesus gives peace - John 14:27
- Jesus has authority - Matthew 28:18; John 5:26-27; 17:2; 3:35
- Jesus judges - John 5:22,27
- Jesus knows all men - John 16:30
- Jesus opens the mind to understand scripture - Luke 24:45
- Jesus received honor and glory from the Father - 2 Peter 1:17
- Jesus resurrects - John 5:39; 11:25-26; 6:40,44,54
- Jesus reveals grace and truth - John 1:17 see John 6:45
- Jesus reveals the Father - Matthew 11:27 Luke 10:22
- Jesus saves forever - Matt 18:11; John 10:28; Hebrews 7:25
- Jesus bears witness of Himself - John 8:18; 14:6
- Jesus' works bear witness of Himself - John 5:36; 10:25
- The Father bears witness of Jesus - John 5:37; 8:18; 1 John 5:9
- The Holy Spirit bears witness of Jesus - John 15:26
- The multitudes bear witness of Jesus - John 12:17
- The Prophets bear witness of Jesus - Acts 10:43
- The Scriptures bear witness of Jesus - John 5:39
- The Father will honor us if we serve Jesus - John 12:26 see Colossians 3:24
- The Father wants us to fellowship with Jesus - I Corinthians 1:9
- The Father tells us to listen to Jesus - Luke 9:35; Matthew 17:5
- The Father tells us to come to Jesus - John 6:45
- The Father draws us to Jesus - John 6:44
- Everyone who's heard & learned from the Father comes to Jesus - John 6:45
- The Law leads us to Christ - Gal. 3:24
- Jesus is the Savior - John 4:42; 1 John 4:14
- Jesus is King - Matthew 2:1-6; Luke 23:3
- In Jesus, is the treasures of wisdom and knowledge - Colossians 2:2-3
- In Jesus we have been made complete Colossians 2:10
- Jesus indwells us - Colossians 1:27
- Jesus sanctifies - Hebrews 2:11
- Jesus loves - Ephesians 5:25
- We come to Jesus - John 5:40; 7:37; 6: 35, 37, 45, 65
- We sin against Jesus - 1 Corinthians 8:12
- We receive Jesus - John 1:12 Colossians 2:6
- Jesus makes many righteous - Romans 5:19
- Jesus is the image of the invisible God - Hebrews 1:3
- Jesus sends the Holy Spirit - John 15:26
- Jesus abides forever - Hebrews 7:24
- Jesus offered up Himself - Heb. 7: 27; 9:14
- Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time - Hebrews 10:12
- The Son of God has given us understanding - 1 John 5:20
- Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith - Hebrews 12:2
- Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession - Hebrews 1:3
- The Son of God has given us understanding - 1 John 5:20
- Jesus cleanses us from our sins by His blood - Revelation 1:5; Romans. 5:9
- Jesus is the Light of the world - John 9:5
- Jesus has explained the Father - John 1:18
- Jesus was crucified because of weakness - 2 Corinthians 13:4
- Jesus has overcome the world - John 16:33
- Truth is in Jesus - Ephesians 4:21
- The fruit of righteousness comes through Jesus Christ - Phil. 1:11
- Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come - 1 Thessalonians 1:10
- Disciples bear witness of Jesus Christ - John 15:27
- Jesus died and rose again - 1 Thessalonians 4:14
- The Christian dead have fallen asleep in Jesus - 1 Thessalonians 4:15
- Jesus died for us - 1 Thessalonians 5:10
- Jesus tasted death for everyone - Hebrews 2:9
- Jesus rendered the devil powerless - Hebrews 2:14
- Jesus is able to save completely - Hebrews 7:25
- Jesus was a ransom for many and to serve - Matthew 20:28
- Jesus came to be a high priest - Hebrews 2:17
- Jesus came to save - John 3:17; Luke 19:10
- Jesus came to preach the kingdom of God - Luke 4:43
- Jesus came to bring division - Luke 12:51
- Jesus came to do the will of the Father - John 6:38
- Jesus came to give the Father's words - John 17:8
- Jesus came to testify to the truth - John 18:37
- Jesus came to die and destroy Satan's power - Hebrews 2:14
- Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets - Matthew 5:17
- Jesus came to give life - John 10:10,28
- Jesus came to taste death for everyone - Hebrews 2:9
- Jesus came to proclaim freedom for believers - Luke 4:18
Jesus is not God?
I hope my anti-christ friends wouldn't dismiss all these biblical truths with one big denial of who Jesus is. I hope they would provide an explanation (justifiable) for each, if they feel burdened to reject them. Does this call for a debate or is it a reasonable expectation, in a general forum exchange?
Also, what would be nice, is to know which of the one-hundred truths about Jesus, they agree. Since both men purport to be Christians, it should be interesting. However, some posters and readers make think otherwise. CM
Source:
Edward Henry Bickersteth, The Trinity 1892
Comments
-
I hope my anti-christ friends wouldn't dismiss all these biblical truths with one big denial of who Jesus is. I hope they would provide an explanation (justifiable) for each, if they feel burdened to reject them. Does this call for a debate or is it a reasonable expectation, in a general forum exchange?
why should I provide an explanation when all you do is quote claims by other authors? Is this a debate? since you declare me to be "anti-christ" why should I even consider your worthy of one further word of reply ???
But then, let's see ... just out of generosity some basic observation concerning the starters in your quoted list
Jesus claimed to be God - John 8:24; 8:56-59 (see Exodus 3:14); 10:30-33.
These verses have NOTHING about Jesus claiming to be God ... reading the text carefully in its context will easily explain what the verses do in fact say.
Jesus created all things - John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17
Again, reading text and context is a fundamental principle for understanding correctly what is written in any text.
John 1:3 states that by means of/through God speaking WORD, things were created. Col 1:15ff state that the invisible God (and not the visible Jesus did the creating.
-
Thanks CM! This is great.
-
Wolfgang,
Thanks for responding to my post, seemingly, from your mercy.
Let not got lost or carried away. Is not I defined my usage of the word, "anti-christ". Did I misuse the word? Or, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too?
@Wolfgang said:
"Col 1:15ff state that the invisible God (and not the visible Jesus did the creating".
CM: You're admitting the pre-incarnate Christ created the world? Are you admitting Jesus is from everlasting to everlasting?
Wolfgang, you are saying other voices on the subject matter have no relevancy in our exchanges? Or, they are not saying what you want to hear? What your word and opinions more credence than everyone else's? Maybe a little more focus on what's being said, sounds like a plan, moving forward. Aren't your thoughts influenced by the thoughts of others? Do you know your views and lack of respect of other voices, some people feel the same about your points of views?
So, let's move on and enjoy all voices in the conversation. To your chagrin, other voices exist. They can, will, and must be heard. The world or words don't revolve around Wolfgang. Take pride in your expressions. However, please, show some respect for my and others contributions to these forums, even if aided by the voices of others.
As for now, let's focus on content and not sources. The only change that's sure is the one you make from within, of yourself. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
"Col 1:15ff state that the invisible God (and not the visible Jesus) did the creating".
CM: You're admitting the pre-incarnate Christ created the world? Are you admitting Jesus is from everlasting to everlasting?
No
Wolfgang, you are saying other voices on the subject matter have no relevancy in our exchanges?
No ... however, depending on the content of what is said, it may be indeed irrelevant
Or, they are not saying what you want to hear?
Anyone can say anything ... whether I want to hear something or nothing.
What your word and opinions more credence than everyone else's?
No ... however, I would give more credence to a voice that is based on Scripture rather than on church dogma, no matter who is speaking or writing
Maybe a little more focus on what's being said, sounds like a plan, moving forward. Aren't your thoughts influenced by the thoughts of others?
They might be ... however, I am rather determined to voice and write those thoughts for which I take responsibility, rather than just quoting someone else behind whom I might then perhaps hide
Do you know your views and lack of respect of other voices, some people feel the same about your points of views?
Yes ... they are welcome to feel any way they want to feel. However, feelings do not determine whether the content of someone's statement and words is in harmony with Scripture or not.
-
@C_M_ said:
I hope my anti-christ friends wouldn't dismiss all these biblical truths with one big denial of who Jesus is. I hope they would provide an explanation (justifiable) for each, if they feel burdened to reject them. Does this call for a debate or is it a reasonable expectation, in a general forum exchange?
Also, what would be nice, is to know which of the one-hundred truths about Jesus, they agree. Since both men purport to be Christians, it should be interesting. However, some posters and readers make think otherwise.
As to your "hope" that we "anti-(C)hrist friends" of yours will provide a response/explanation/justification for "each" of Edward Henry Bickersteth's 99 proposed biblical proof texts that we choose to "reject":
In response to edition #1 of your "Smoking Gun" Christology series, I posted an extensive exegetical response to that edition's central text, Titus 2.13. To-date, your only responses have been 1) to advise us that your "studied take on the text" would come "later," and to recommend that we "stop giving one another a piece of our mines and mine the text;" and 2) to critique what you consider to be the unnecessary and unhelpful incidence of debates arising in CD forum threads. [In a different thread, you assured us that you "haven't forgotten about the Titus passage."] After you follow through on your stated intention to post a "studied take" on the Titus 2 text, I will respond to Bickersteth's list in a manner I deem appropriate.
As to your assertions that Wolfgang and I are "anti-(C)hrist" and only "purport" to be Christians:
- Please explain how your assertions comply with your previously cited call for us to "stop giving one another a piece of our mines and mine the text."
- The New Testament portion of my daily Bible reading today was Luke 6, in which Jesus commands his followers not to judge or condemn (Luke 6.37) and to remove the logs in their own eyes before criticizing the specks in others' eyes (Luke 6.41-42). Sounds like a good textual predicate for the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people," doesn't it?
-
Bill said:
In response to edition #1 of your "Smoking Gun" Christology series, I posted an extensive exegetical response to that edition's central text, Titus 2.13. To-date, your only responses have been 1) to advise us that your "studied take on the text" would come "later," and to recommend that we "stop giving one another a piece of our mines and mine the text;" and 2) to critique what you consider to be the unnecessary and unhelpful incidence of debates arising in CD forum threads. [In a different thread, you assured us that you "haven't forgotten about the Titus passage."] After you follow through on your stated intention to post a "studied take" on the Titus 2 text, I will respond to Bickersteth's list in a manner I deem appropriate.
Bill, you are right on all point and it is fair for you to "...respond to Bickersteth's list in a manner I deem appropriate". No pressures from me. Take your time. I am not unreasonable.
@Bill_Coley said:
"... my daily Bible reading today was Luke 6, in which Jesus commands his followers not to judge or condemn (Luke 6.37) and to remove the logs in their own eyes before criticizing the specks in others' eyes (Luke 6.41-42)".
Do you consider my statements as "judging" or "holding up a mirror"? To me, to judge another, in view of the truth in Matt 7, is for one to make a determination on one's eternal destiny. This, I have NOT done, any such. Don't you agree? Let's keep it sweet.
Let me be clear, I'm not here to pressure, to shame you to be or do anything before you are willing or convicted. I accept you as I met you and exchange with you the way you are. Is it unfair of me to compile your crystallized points thus far? Have I misstated or misrepresented your position or points of views? You're not suggesting I am being hypocritical, aren't you?
As for your "criticize ideas, not people" this phase need to be examined on the CD's Community rack of analysis before it can be implemented more than it is cited.
Blessed day! CM
-
@C_M_ SAID:
Bill, you are right on all point and it is fair for you to "...respond to Bickersteth's list in a manner I deem appropriate". No pressures from me. Take your time. I am not unreasonable.
It's possible to interpret your reply here as evidence that I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. The "pressure" for me to reply to Bickersteth's list is not from you; if anything, it's on you. I will not respond that that list until you fulfill your stated intention to post YOUR "studied take" on Titus 2.13.
Do you consider my statements as "judging" or "holding up a mirror"? To me, to judge another, in view of the truth in Matt 7, is for one to make a determination on one's eternal destiny. This, I have NOT done, any such.
In your recent posts, for reasons that aren't clear to me, you've offered the unsolicited judgments that I only "purport" to be a Christian, that I am "anti-(C)hrist," that I might believe Christianity is a "cult," and might parrot "heretical teachings of the past." In my view, NONE of those unsolicited judgments was on-topic, and ALL of them violated the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." They are especially difficult to understand in light of your posted plea to CD posters to "stop giving one another a piece of our mines and mine the text." Given your own directive, CM, on what grounds do you justify presenting the unsolicited judgments about me (and Wolfgang) which I cited at the beginning of this paragraph?
Let me be clear, I'm not here to pressure, to shame you to be or do anything before you are willing or convicted. I accept you as I met you and exchange with you the way you are. Is it unfair of me to compile your crystallized points thus far? Have I misstated or misrepresented your position or points of views? You're not suggesting I am being hypocritical, aren't you?
You can't pressure or shame me into doing anything...ever, CM.
Our attempts to summarize each other's views, especially in single sentence- or sentence fragment statements, will always lack the nuance and precision those views deserve, but I don't object to the accuracy of your statements; that's for other posts. Instead, I object to the judgments about me and Wolfgang that you made in response to your summary of my views. I see no place for such commentaries about each other in these forums. (Please notice, I have have never expressed doubt about or concern about your faith or theology.)
-
CM Response: Bill, "It's possible, to interpret your reply...", but the probability is slim to null. There is no misunderstanding , here, on my part. You are crystal, here, and in your "previous post". Your response to "Bickersteth's list" is predicated upon my "studied take" on Titus 2.13". Under the circumstances, as I said before, it's fair and reasonable. This is not a prison forum. You choose whatever, self-imposed terms to response to a post. This is your right. These forums afford you this privilege and right. More power to you! See, no shame, no blame. CM
-
when can we expect your studied take on Titus 2.13 ?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
"In your recent posts, for reasons that aren't clear to me, you've offered the unsolicited judgments that I only "purport" to be a Christian, that I am "anti-(C)hrist," that I might believe Christianity is a "cult," and might parrot "heretical teachings of the past." In my view, NONE of those unsolicited judgments was on-topic, and ALL of them violated the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." They are especially difficult to understand in light of your posted plea to CD posters to "stop giving one another a piece of our mines and mine the text." Given your own directive, CM, on what grounds do you justify presenting the unsolicited judgments about me (and Wolfgang) which I cited at the beginning of this paragraph?
@CM said:
First of all, I think things are blown out of proportion.
Secondly, I believe you and Wolfgang made a profession to be Christians. Am I correct or mistaken, here?
Thirdly, review how I used the word "anti".
Fourthly, you said, I surmised that you "believe Christianity is a "cult"'. Did I do this? Please reflect.
Lastly, is not many of your views have historical footprints and those who held those views were labelled heretics?
So, you see, simple explanations given, can clear up all matters to avoid top loading this OP with needless misunderstandings. Enough of the sideshow, let's honor the OP. CM
-
Adam had finite righteousness and therefore he he remained temporal having sin (less than God's righteousness) and death built in, as proven by his disobedience. Only God has infinite righteousness and is therefore sinless and eternal. So unless Jesus is God, he could not pay for our sins, but only for his own lack of infinite righteousness. But in being God, he credited us with his infinite righteousness thereby giving us the life of eternal righteousness previously found only in God.
-
Bro. Wolfgang,
Answer: In the fullness of time, in light of domestic concerns and other small postings. Besides, I am sure you're not waiting on my view with "bated breath". Until it appears (studied take on Titus 2.13), enjoy the rest of the forums. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
I believe you and Wolfgang made a profession to be Christians. Am I correct or mistaken, here?
In this thread's OP, you didn't assert that Wolfgang and I "profess" to be Christians; you asserted that we "purport" to be Christians. Here's a sample of the first (i.e. the most common) definitions of "purport" in online dictionaries: (emphasis added)
- "Appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely."
- " To have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming."
- "To present, especially deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely"
Thirdly, review how I used the word "anti".
Also in this thread's OP, you expressed your hope that your "anti-christ friends wouldn't dismiss all these biblical truths with one big denial of who Jesus is." I took that to be a reference to people you believe are against - "anti" - Christ. If in fact you meant "anti-christ" as shorthand for people who don't believe Jesus was God, then in my view, you made a terrible word choice, given the most common usage of that word.
Fourthly, you said, I surmised that you "believe Christianity is a "cult"'. Did I do this? Please reflect.
Upon further review of the post in question, why you asked whether Christianity is a "cult" is not at all clear to me. It's entirely possible that you didn't mean to suggest Wolfgang and I believe Christianity is a cult. I do know that it's entirely true that I don't know what that part of your post meant.
Lastly, is not many of your views have historical footprints and those who held those views were labelled heretics?
Then don't label the views, engage them.
So, you see, simple explanations given, can clear up all matters to avoid top loading this OP with needless misunderstandings. Enough of the sideshow, let's honor the OP. CM
This post has made clear that I don't agree with your characterization of "the sideshow."
While we "honor the OP," let's also honor the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
-
still waiting ... and writing the short note in hope that the matter will not go lost and be forgotten
-
@C_M_ says:
Like the return of Jesus, it's sure, but no poster knows the day or the hour. Until that time, enjoy the forums. 🤔 CM
-
@C_M wrote
Jesus said, "I AM the Bread of Life" - John 6:35,41,48,51
Jesus said, "I AM the Door" - John 10:7,9
Jesus said, "I AM the Good Shepherd" - John 10:11, 14
Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6
Jesus said, "I AM the Light of the world" - John 8:12; 9:5;12:46; Luke 2:32
Jesus said, "I AM the True Vine" - John 15:1; 15:5
Jesus said, "I AM the Resurrection and the Life" - John 11:25
Jesus said, "I AM the First and the Last" - Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13
C_M, what are you trying to say with your capitalization of the words "I" and "am" in the above quoted statements Jesus made? Why the "I AM ..." instead of the proper "I am ..."? Any grammatical reason?
-
Is not, God is, and provides all these things, Wolfgang? CM
-
????? what are you saying? I rather simply asked about your capitalization spelling of the words "I" and "am" in those verses and what you meant to say by doing so ...
In other words, do you believe the words "I" and "am" are not used as the personal pronoun "I" and the auxiliary verb "am" but are used as something else? If so, what do your actually mean with the capitalized "I AM"?
Post edited by [Deleted User] on -
"finite righteousness" ???? "infinite righteousness" ??? what is that supposed to be ???
How do you define "righteousness" ??? Is that some character trade? some genetical disposition? or a state of being which can change in accordance with someone's action? does the action determine whether or not a person is righteous ? or does the state of being righteous or unrighteous determine how a person acts? which precedes what?
-
God is the standard for righteousness being infinite without beginning or end. Adam had finite righteousness at his best which is sinful. It misses the mark, of God's righteousness.
-
thank you for repeating what you already had written. Could you now perhaps answer the questions i had asked concerning your use of terminology?
How do you define "righteousness" ??? Is that some character trade? some genetical disposition? or a state of being which can change in accordance with someone's action? does the action determine whether or not a person is righteous ? or does the state of being righteous or unrighteous determine how a person acts? which precedes what?
-
God is righteous. So you determine what righteousness is by studying his moral demands for us.
-
@Dave_L , why don't you simply state that you are UNWILLING to answer any questions anyone asks of you in regards to points you make in your posts?
-
I'm willing or I would not reply.
-
Wolfgang,
You said, "...what do your actually mean with the capitalized "I AM"?
Answer: I view it as referring to Jesus who spoke to words.
The description of God as he "who is, and who was, and who is to come" is considered by some scholars to be an adaptation of the name of God made known to Moses at the burning bush in Exod 3:14. The LXX there renders "I am who I am" as "I am who is" (ego eimi ho on). According to G. R. Beasley-Murray, the Jerusalem Targum "expanded this to 'I am he who is and who will be'; but in its comment on Deut. 32:29 it is reproduced as 'I am he who is, and who was, and I am who will be.'"
Similar definitions of God in terms of time were known in the ancient Greek world. Robert Mounce directs our attention to the shrine of Minerva at Sais provides the inscription, "I am all that hath been and is and shall be." CM
SOURCES:
- G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, softback ed., New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981), 54.
- Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 68.
-
@C_M_ wrote
Mfgang,
You said, "...what do your actually mean with the capitalized "I AM"?
Answer: I view it as referring to Jesus who spoke to words.
I don't get what you mean ... Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am ...". Now you seem to interpret it as "Before Abraham was I AM", in other words "Before Abraham was YHWH (God)" ?? In this case, Jesus was not referring to himself, but to YHWH (God), his Father, Who was definitely before Abraham. How was Jesus referring to himself with "I AM" in this statement? Are there words missing in Jesus' statement which you infer?
-
Wolfgang,
Are you sure you're not reading into the text? Could it be possible, you're wrong on this? Is this bias theology, or what? CM
-
Are you sure you're not reading into the text? Could it be possible, you're wrong on this? Is this bias theology, or what?
? I asked you about what your wrote and what you meant with what your wrote .... giving some examples of what your interpretation might perhaps mean, and therefore asking for clarification from you what you mean when capitalizing "I AM" and referring it to Jesus.
Asking again: What do you mean with your statement? is your idea perhaps one of or close to one of those possibilities I mentioned? or what?
-
Jesus is Lord and provider of human needs (totally). To summarize all that I meant is what Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6. CM
-
To summarize all that I meant is what Jesus said, "I AM the Way the Truth and The Life" - John 14:6. CM
Does your capitalization of I AM indicate something other than the personal pronoun "I" and the word "am" as used when someone describes something he/she is, e.g. "I am a German" or "I am a musician"? Are you trying to tell us that "I" and "am" when capitalized mean something different from what the words normally mean in such sentences as "I am the good shepherd" or "I am {whatever is then stated}" ?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
