On one thread, a member suggested that someone can have a relationship with Jesus. To a skeptic, this would seem very odd since Jesus has been long dead. When you are in a relationship with someone, this usually involves both parties communicating with each other, spending time with each other, giving each other advice, having fun, etc. How can you reliably experience Jesus in any way (beyond just reading about him) if he doesn't do any of the things from the last sentence. Even if you bring up a spiritual relationship, you can still question that, like questioning how do you know it's Jesus and not a demon?
For Debate:
Is there a reliable way of knowing that you have a relationship with Jesus? Anyway to confirm it?
i would say off the cuff that believers are usually led by cult of sol congregations into relationships with and even worship of “Jesus,” Who is presented to them as basically Apollos, what with the comings and goings; Jesus is either literally returning here, or returning to take some believers somewhere else, no one is really sure which…but a central point, imo, is that that is always going to happen Tomorrow, being as how it has not happened today (and an important note; even the Apostles supposed that Jesus’ kingdom was going to manifest as they entered Jerusalem)
My kingdom is not of this world thus ignored then, just like now
They even have a song about it, “Soon and very soon,” that i guess pretty much everyone is fam with? They believe that they are “going” somewhere “to see the king,” see, despite all the warnings about the kingdom not coming by observation, bc they i guess have a need for Spirit to be literal, so God has to “exist,” concepts need to be “proven,” and so without meaning to they boil young goats in their Mother’s Milk so to speak, as may be observed on any Christian forum
The title of “Christ,” many believers are surprised to learn did not originate with Jesus, and was bestowed upon Pharaohs and Caesars since forever, and King David is even compared as a type of Christ, the import here possibly being that ppl sought a Savior then just like we do today in our politics, etc, with candidates employing the language of a Savior even if they do not specifically use that term; instead we hear “drain the swamp” or some similar inference that the people will be saved if this candidate is elected.
So once one has read enough of that in history prior to “Jesus,” it starts becoming clearer why Jesus may have appropriated the title to refer to Himself, which He did only indirectly, and only one time John 4:26, which is also important to a seeker since “no witness,” even if we have many previous writings that referred to a “Savior” and might be applied to Him. Which i would not dispute, but a Jew certainly would. All leading to a view that, after many years of study, comes to sound somewhat tongue-in-cheek; a Savior that the whole of humanity cannot agree on, what kind of savior is that?
i would say “a spiritual kind,” that Jews reject for not being literal enough, and that Christians go on to do the same thing with, in their not recognizing that Jesus is not literal, and certainly not seeking worship, but rather followers.
Many will cry “Lord, Lord,” we are told, and while i certainly dont know, i would beware anyone telling me that Jesus is literally returning soon, or that we will be going anywhere with Jesus ”soon,” and we are even warned about those who have a form of Godliness but deny its power, which idk but i suggest resides in
today, and is completely available
right now
