In defense of prophecy

It is somewhat different in that one must examine what each individual taught. Christ revealed formerly hidden truths to humanity that do not appear to be man orgininated.For example:
John 4:23 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truthDoes this have the apearance of something that is man orginated? What does it mean to worship something in spirit and in truth? I would claim that this very statement from the gospel of John is an example of how Christs teachings were and are seperate from how a mere mans teachings would appear, that is Christ taught spiritual truths that are completely different than what man typicaly thinks should be true. Wouldn't a mere man simply say something like:God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in in truth?Note, I removed the mention of spirit. Why would a mere man say in spirit AND in truth? This peculiar statement lends further evidence suggesting something far more powerful and meaningfull is at work here.Even a non-Christian would concede that in fact Christ was an extremely wise teacher and highly moral(I would of course add -- perfect). For someone to examine what Christ taught in context to the culture in which he lived , they would conclude that He was in fact either lying and decieving everyone or that He was simply an irrational lunatic. Another option is that He was telling the truth.Examine each possibility case by case.
1) Liar. If He was a liar you would have to ask what His motives were for lying? To die on a cross? To wash other peoples feet and serve? Certainly this is not likely.2) Lunatic. The wisdom that Christ professed suggests that He was an extremely intelligent and wise teacher. His behavior is simply not consistent with this option.3) Lord. While this is not a close book case, certainly this option is possible, that Christ was in fact who church history and theology suggests He is, that is the Son of God or the Wisdom of God.Regards.

Fair enough, I grant this.Perhaps the desire to keep with the L's makes the arguement appear oversimplified. The point that the argument is making is that Christ either was lieing, or He thought He was telling the truth when in fact He wasn't (and was therefore mad) or He was telling the truth. While we could argue all day on what other possibilities there are, it ultimately boils down to these three options(if we do have accurate reflections of His teachings as I would suggest we do- gospel records and current testimonials).My point was simply that Christ did not behave in a manner consistent with how one would expect someone who inappropriately thought they could command nature (or at the risk of sparking another discussion, even claim to be God) to act.Thanks and regards.