WATCH: Bono's Unexpected Response to 'Who Is Jesus?' Question

Charisma News ^ | 31 March 14 | Charisma News Staff

[SkyPilot]

U2 frontman Bono talks about his faith and answers the question "Who is Jesus?" in the video below. Click play to watch.

Link Here with Video (2 mins 46 secs)

[Sam's Army]

To all that have participated or viewed this thread:

Have a blessed Easter. May God's grace be with you.

He is risen indeed.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In fact, the Greek (iesous) is pretty close to the English “Jesus.” If an English speaker heard someone talking about Jesus in the Greek of the Gospels, chances are he would pick up on the name.

If calling Jesus Yeshua were so important then why are our gospels in Greek?

Greek tells the world, loud and clear, that Jesus is for everybody.

[HiTech RedNeck]

He’s risen and risen in our hearts too. Those who would try to keep Him down with some human methodology find themselves quite mistaken.

It is because of that new spirit that we begin to catch on to what He is about, personally, and begin to obey from the heart, not the head.

[SkyPilot]

By the way, Happy Easter everyone. He is Risen.

[SkyPilot]

If calling Jesus Yeshua were so important then why are our gospels in Greek?

Agree. My own theory is that Paul wanted to reach a larger audience, and his mission was to the Gentile world, hence he wrote in the then more "universal" language of Greek. Christ commissioned that the Gospel be preached to the entire world. God said the world is His. But as you said, atomizing the pronunciation or other aspects take us away from Grace.

[SkyPilot]

Yes, He is. Happy Easter.

[SkyPilot]

Confess it! You want the proud power position of putting people behind an eight ball that you jolly well know they won’t be out from behind until they reach glory. Jesus had very brown words for the Pharisees who did this. They were trying to interpose themselves between God and the people, like you are trying to do so now with your idiosyncratic, eisegetic theology.

Very well said.

[mdmathis6]

Well if God is so offended by folks using the “so called” cursing Anglicized name(”may his name be forgotten and not remembered), he obviously isn't offended by these same folks remembering and believing in the person of Jesus Christ and having faith in this “man with no name” who “wasn't comely that men should desire him”. A lot of “forgotten” folks who “have no name” have found hope in “HIS” name. The Bible has lots of other names for Jesus, all equally valid....The Mighty God, the everlasting Father(if we see Christ we see the Father), Redeemer, Deliverer, Savior Anointed(Jesus Christ as the Greek puts it together), Jacob's star, I AM, Judah's Lion, Counselor

Christ was “despised and rejected”. Perhaps God allowed the Anglicized “mistake” into the Bible for a reason after all, as his own twist against a rabbinical curse? Or perhaps you are simply wrong in your assertions? Joshua would be fine with me,Yeshua also...very PC and ethnic sounding. I could call him Emmanuel or perhaps “God with us”...a little wordy but still another name for Jesus.

In short I'd be a little less concerned about the names of God and more about the heart of love He has extended towards all men, that is to say Emmanuel!

[SkyPilot]

Amen. And my favorite name (one He called Himself more often than any other) - the Son of Man.

[SouthernClaire]

Your favorite, Son of Man, is a great comfort to me.

I’ve struggled a lot (and still do) in understanding how He could love a person like me. I look to Him as the Son of Man to try to understand it better.

It’s fascinating that those so many wonderful names of His seem to cover every concern or question a believer would have.

[A_perfect_lady]

They thought that because THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND the prophecies.

So what you believe is that all the people who actually lived there, spoke the language, knew the political situation, met Jesus, talked with him, listened to his words, traveled at his side, ate with him, gave their money to him (or gave it up to be with him), and knew him personally... were all completely misguided as to his intentions.

Why would this be? There can be only 3 explanations that I can think of.

1. He was deliberately misleading them as to his intentions.

2. He tried to explain but was terrible at making himself understood.

3. His followers were mostly the village idiots that he picked up on his travels.

[A_perfect_lady]

Here is the OT depiction of the Celebration of the first fruits. Notice in addition to the sheafs of fruits a lamb was also offered. This was well known as prophetic though very few even in Jesus’ time knew the whole import of the feast until after the Resurrection.

There it is. Stop right there. As the mechanic would say, "There's your problem."

It's not that none of this was "known" until after the Resurrection, it's that no one interpreted it that way until after the Resurrection. And then, only people determined to still consider Jesus the Messiah would interpret it that way. The reason Jews do not consider Jesus the Messiah is because that is not what the Messiah was sent to do, as far as THEY understood it.

Do you understand? As far as THEY understood it (and do to this day), the Messiah was sent to free Israel from foreign rule.

Before we go any further, do you understand what I am saying? I'm not even trying to get into whether you think the Jews are right or wrong (although it's rather amusing for non-Jews to say that Jews were wrong about their own hopes and dreams for their own nation and their own prophecies about how it would come about.)

Just going by what you said right there, these celebrations and feasts were NOT INTERPRETED YOUR WAY UNTIL AFTER JESUS DIED. Right?

[A_perfect_lady]

All of the NT was originally written in Hebrew, and soon thereafter translated to Aramaic for those in the surrounding regions. Greek came later.

And these original Hebrew and Aramaic transcripts are preserved where? Which museum? Who has them now?

[A_perfect_lady]

This is as good a place to start as any: “Gen. 3:15; And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (What does this have to do with a Messiah?)”

What’s the apparent problem with the passage?

There's no mention of the Messiah. This all predates the establishment of Israel.

[A_perfect_lady]

I also believe that John 3:17 should be added to this thread. "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

No, I'm not looking for after-the-fact explanations of what God must have been up to. I'm looking for Old Testament references to the Messiah as the Jews understood him. Not as you understand him today. Since you think something completely different from what the Jews of the time thought, to you, EVERYTHING references the Messiah.

But that's in hindsight.

I want to know what the Jews thought the Messiah was, specifically before Jesus lived.

[ClearCase_guy]

http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm

44 Prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ

[A_perfect_lady]

For one thing, they witnessed countless miracles that Jesus performed. They also thought that because they only knew what they had been taught, the scope of their thinking was quite limited by Jewish legalism and interpretation.

That's right! They also thought that because they had been taught that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Jesus was from Nazareth, but by some strange quirk of fate, his pregnant mother was taken from one city to another to participate in a census (very odd way to do a census). They were also taught that the Messiah would be descended from David (which Jesus was on his mother's side) but could not be descended from Solomon (which he was on his father's side, which would disqualify him but for the very lucky circumstance that his father wasn't his real father but that, like a Greek hero, he was descended directly from God. Another very convincing element that would mislead Jews into thinking Jesus came to fulfill their prophecy.)

And if that was not at ALL what he came to do, why did he meet the criteria so exactly? When it had NOTHING TO DO with what he was really there for? Hm...

The disciples had to be taught by Christ that he was coming not to set up a powerful political kingdom, instead he was establishing God's eternal kingdom.

Out of curiosity (and I'm not setting you up, I really don't know the answer to this one) which of his followers understood completely, before the crucifixion, what Jesus was really there for?

[A_perfect_lady]

No Hebrew was ever led to believe that Torah could save them. They always knew that their confession of transgression of Torah and sin offering were dependent on belief in their future redemption by a sinless man.

But I'm not asking how they thought they were going to get into Heaven. I'm asking what they thought the Messiah would do. It's clear from the Old Testament prophecies that they thought the Messiah would save Israel from foreign rule and invasion.

[A_perfect_lady]

And he will, ten days after we are gathered at the last trump, after the 7 bowls of Yehova’s wrath have been poured out on the Earth, At Succot, he will return to Earth as an avenging King, With his elect, and establish his seat of government on the temple mount.

Hasn't happened yet, though, has it?

[A_perfect_lady]

The simple succinct answer to this is that he couldn’t take the chance of tipping his hand to Satan. Had Satan figured out what the crucifixion was going to accomplish, he would have aborted it.

Then why, in the very same chapter of John, did Jesus tell Jews in the temple of Jerusalem that he WAS the son of God? He said it to them, just not to Pilates.

John 10:17-18 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."