What is a 'Christ'?

[JonathanL]

Nature can be manipulated of course but the rules are fixed.

Except if you're the one who set the rules in the first place.

[firstfloor]

He who invents the rules is honour bound to obey them otherwise he sets a bad example for the rest. But also He needs somewhere to stand and be. That foundation we call nature. If He is outside nature He cannot hear us and we cannot hear Him because everything is bound by natural law.

[Cow Poke]

He who invents the rules is honour bound to obey them otherwise he sets a bad example for the rest.

He who invents the rules can enforce them = justice.
He who invents the rules can bend them = mercy.

[JonathanL]

He who invents the rules is honour bound to obey them otherwise he sets a bad example for the rest.

[Christianbookworm]

How is overcoming the laws of physics through sheer power a bad example?

[JonathanL]

Whether or not God sets a bad example () or not when he breaks the rules of nature is completely irrelevant, given that God is the only one who's even able to "break" them in the first place.

[firstfloor]

Are you sure you are not confusing God with Superman?

[JonathanL]

Are you sure you are not confusing God with Superman?

Usually your trolls are atleast somewhat on point. Try again.

[firstfloor]

I was being serious. There is a difference between an act of God.and a story about an act of God. One needs physics, even Divine physics, the other simply needs language. The later is vey inexpressive to produce but some people are fooled by it because that's what they want to believe.

[JonathanL]

I was being serious.

That's even worse.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Mark (the earliest gospel) only has seven occurrences of ‘Christ’ but not a single example of Jesus using the term with reference to himself. The word ‘Christ’ does not occur in ‘Q’ (material shared by Matthew/Luke) at all. This strongly suggests that Jesus did not call himself 'Messiah', but instead, the early church applied the title to him.

[Cow Poke]

Mark (the earliest gospel) only has seven occurrences of ‘Christ’ but not a single example of Jesus using the term with reference to himself. The word ‘Christ’ does not occur in ‘Q’ (material shared by Matthew/Luke) at all. This strongly suggests that Jesus did not call himself 'Messiah', but instead, the early church applied the title to him.

Yet, when Jesus asked the disciples who they thought He was, Peter responded that He was the Christ, and Jesus was good with that.
(Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71)

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yet, when Jesus asked the disciples who they thought He was, Peter responded that He was the Christ, and Jesus was good with that.
(Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71)

Yes, the Messiah claims increased as time went on and the later gospels were composed when the early church was trying to solidify Jesus as Messiah. For such an important claim though, it's strange that it gets no mention from the lips of Jesus himself in the earliest gospel. You'd think the author of Mark would have wanted people to know that if it really was a genuine saying of Jesus. It's absence from the Q material is suspicious as well.

[Adrift]

Yet, when Jesus asked the disciples who they thought He was, Peter responded that He was the Christ, and Jesus was good with that.
(Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71)

You forgot one,

Mark 8:27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” 29 And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, the Messiah claims increased as time went on and the later gospels were composed when the early church was trying to solidify Jesus as Messiah. For such an important claim though, it's strange that it gets no mention from the lips of Jesus himself in the earliest gospel. You'd think the author of Mark would have wanted people to know that if it really was a genuine saying of Jesus. It's absence from the Q material is suspicious as well.

Its absence from a "document" that may well never have existed is suspicious?

In any rate, IMO it's sort of speculative to imagine what someone 2,000 years ago must have wanted people to know.