Question on the death of Jesus

Luminous · Apr 22, 2011

sniper762 said:
the "truth" lies in the eyes of the beholder

what they see as "true" might lie in their eye. but that is all it does, it lies.
true truth might be independent of observer.
Penumbra once lead me to an argument for why something seemingly all-knowing would have to understand its agnosticism. it should be around here somewhere...

yes, here it is: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...4122-god-necessity-atheist-6.html#post2432030

sniper762 · Apr 22, 2011

who is THEY? believers or unbelievers? either could be believing lies, correct?

horizon_mj1 · Apr 22, 2011

Is the fact negated that the Bible is a perceptional and personal explanation of life?

sniper762 · Apr 22, 2011

sorry your question is inconceivable (over my head)

please simplify

horizon_mj1 · Apr 22, 2011

The Bible is kind of like a personal journal of the ones who wrote it.

sniper762 · Apr 22, 2011

the bible was written (though inspired by god) by primitively ill educated men who eplained things the best way that they knew how.

it takes "us" as well educated men to decipher it.

i've done that

horizon_mj1 · Apr 22, 2011

sniper762 said:
the bible was written (though inspired by god) by primitively ill educated men who eplained things the best way that they knew how.

it takes "us" as well educated men to decipher it.

i've done that

That IMO is the best way to see it for what it is.

Luminous · Apr 22, 2011

sniper762 said:
who is THEY? believers or unbelievers? either could be believing lies, correct?

:yes: : probably both.

My Bible is Our Universe.

sniper762 · Apr 22, 2011

luminous, in post 81, you say that "they" believe lies.

could it be YOU that believes lies?

Luminous · Apr 22, 2011

sniper762 said:
luminous, in post 81, you say that "they" believe lies.

could it be YOU that believes lies?

unlikely...agnosticism is obvious and true.
Though I must admit that it is only true by definition, like the idea "I exist".

filthy tugboat · Apr 22, 2011

Luminous said:
No. I meant to say, that in some people's minds: "As a fully devine beign, Jesus can exist within the paradox of being both fully devine and fully human." I don't know if Kathryn means that, but it's one way of looking at it.
In other words: Jesus is fully devine and all-powerful. thus He made himself fully human(maybe for only a while/or maybe while being fully devine also). This idea in no way sugests that being human is being devine, the suggestion is that being devine CAN mean being human(for a short time/ and or /while also being fully devine).
In another way: the word human and the word devine are in no way contradictory, depending on your definitions. AS in "fully green and fully a triangle"
In yet another way: devine can lead to human and back, but human can't lead to devine at all. "you can take a shower, and then stop takeing a shower, but the shower can't take you at all"
or maybe she does see it as you see it...being fully human means you are also fully devine...in that "a full triangle is also a full polygon". maybe humans are not full triangles.

I suppose the problem is the definition of 'fully divine' but assuming humanity and divinity do not explicitly entail each other than it would seem that the use of the word 'fully' is faulty.

Plato · Apr 22, 2011

esmith said:
I didn't say I wouldn't be open to discussing or debating all issues, just Psalm 22, it appeared from your opinion on this subject your mind is closed..[/quote

Ok, not so, I try never to have a 'closed mind'. On Psalm 22 I'm firm in my opinion as have been Christians throughout history, that this Psalm is what Jesus started to recite when he said..'Father, Father why have you forsaken me etc'..... It would have been well known to Jesus and other 1st century Jews and recited in regards to physical suffering and reaffirmation of God, so it fits.
However, I'm less sure on the rest of my statement that Psalm 22 describes a crucified man and therefore is a direct reference of Jesus from the Old Testament.
The problem was I was using a Bible published (upon checking) in the 1970's, from the Septuagint translation of the Old testament. The Septuagint is the original Greek translation of the Old Testament made in 200BC by Greeks and Jews in Alexandria Egypt. It was later translated into Latin as the 'Vulgate' and then from there to the English 'King James' Bible, and then other Bibles.
In the Septuagint translation made in 200BC way before the time of Jesus, line 17 of the Psalm reads...they have 'pierced' my hands and 'pierced' my feet (a seeming clear reference to crucifixion)...and so the translation had been, but I've now learned (by looking it up) that jewish scholars after the time of Christ pointed out the translation of 'pierced' might be wrong. Christian scholars too wondered about it, pointing out no mention to Psalm 22 was included in the Christian Gospels written way later (65-100AD), and it would seem the Gospel writers would have included it as a Old Testament reference to Jesus if the translation of 'pierced' was accurate.
Modern scholars since the 1980's have concluded that the word 'pierced' in line 17 of Psalm 22 may be wrong and that what the Psalmist actually said is lost to history. Apparently there are 18 possiblilities for what the Psalmist actually said (christianthinktank.com/ps22cheat.html) has a good article on it. The top contenders for what happened to the sufferers hands and feet in Psalm 22 are now... 'tied', 'shriveled', 'pierced', 'torn/ wripped' (by beasts). The NRSV Bible (since at least 2000) and all those from this version now say 'shriveled' , removing a direct reference to crucifixion from the Psalm.
I'll stick with the Septuagint translation of 'pierced' (as it's got about as much chance as the others of being right), but admit it might be wrong, and that there is therefore no 'direct' reference to crucifixion or Jesus in the Psalm (just to great physical suffering as anyone might experience on a cross or otherwise).
I'd still say that there is enough 'indirect' references in this Old Testament Psalm to indicate it is a prophesy of the later Jesus, but that's opinion open to interpretation. Nevertheless, it seems likely Jesus was starting to recite this Psalm of physical sufferers while he was on the cross, even if it was not about him or a prophesy.
*Thanks to esmith for pointing out the changes in the NRSV standard Bible British (English) translation now being used. I knew of course there are differing translations/ versions of the Bible, but did not know that a majority (perhaps?) of Biblical scholars have now accepted the year 2000 (and later) NRSV as the preferred or current translation, and I got to look up a lot about Bible translation from the Septuagint on, (anyone can Google 'Septuagint', 'NRSV Bible', 'Psalm 22 Interpretation' etc. for the info).

I

Poisonshady313 · Apr 22, 2011

Muffled said:
I am sure that those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel would bend over backwards attempting to disprove fulfillment of prophecy.

Not so. The burden isn't on us, for the Psalm had been written centuries before Jesus came about. You're the one doing all the bending.

Obviously "like a lion" does not fit. The sentence makes no sense unless a verb is there.

Obviously it does fit. I doubt you're even basically proficient in Hebrew, let alone a scholar... and all it takes is someone who is at least basically proficient in Hebrew to see how badly Christians mangle the text to make it suit their own purpose.

This passage is closer to the messianic passage in Isaiah:

Isa. 53:3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.

That's not a messianic passage. That's about Israel.

There is no comparative context that supports that David is writing about Jews in general.

You are wrong.

I don't have a problem with that concept if it can be shown from context.

I think you are lying. I think if it were shown to you, you'd insist that I was bending over backwards.

I noticed that you managed to ignore this verse: Ps 22:18 They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

That verse isn't particularly impressive.

Lu 23:34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots.

If I wanted to mislead people into believing a character in my story was linked to passages from the Tanach by including lines from it, even if it had nothing to do with prophecy, let alone messianic prophecy, I would probably have written something similar.

esmith · Apr 22, 2011

I hope no one object to me "jumping" in here. I have a few things I would like to say.

I am sure that those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel would bend over backwards attempting to disprove fulfillment of prophecy.

I think that the responsibility to prove the Christian interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures lies with Christians .

Obviously "like a lion" does not fit. The sentence makes no sense unless a verb is there.

I am going to quote directly from the NRSV bible (copyright 2010). In Psalm 22:12-13 "Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, lake a ravening and roaring lion." In Psalm 22:20-21 it says "Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion!"
These are the only mention of lions in Psalm 22, except for Psalms 22:16 ......"My hands and feet have shriveled." There is a notation about this sentence: Textually obscure: (literally "like a lion my hands and feet" meaning of Hebrew is uncertain.

Isa. 53:3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.

Again directly from the NRSV interpretation. Talmudic tradition identifies the servant with Moses, Christians with Jesus. Second Isaiah identifies the servant with Israel. Other figures identified with the servant include Jeremiah, King Josiah, and King Jehoiachin.

esmith · Apr 23, 2011

Those of the Christian faith, maybe not all, think that Jesus was quoting the first lines of Psalm 22. If this is so, then he believes that he has some relationship to God other than being God. Correct?
This is where I start having problems with the Christian faith. Christians now pray to Jesus and justify, in my opinion, of having more than one god by saying that it is really the Holy Trinity, that Jesus is the god incarnate. Now the word incarnate means literally "embodied in flesh or taking on flesh, refers to the conception and birth of a sentient creature (generally a human) who is the material manifestation of an entity, god or force whose original nature is immaterial".
If the above statement is correct, would not Jesus know he was God and if so why would he be pleading for God to save him as expressed in Psalm 22.
I just can't understand how Christians can justify, again in my opinion, praying to more than one god. When I was very young and was taken to church (over 50 years ago) I was taught that Jesus sat at the "right hand of God", but he was not equal to or the same as God. Has religion changed that much in the passing years. (Note I only recently stated attending church again)

muzu · Apr 25, 2011

Sweetvoice said:
Okay, thanks for that. Well, well, it seem the muslim version has a look-alike impersonator for Jesus while he sneak away through the back door. Clever.

Yes, Jesus (pbuh) was sneaked away through the window as is mentioned in Gospel of Barnabas. which reads

Chapter 214 - 216

214: Having gone forth from the house, Jesus retired into the garden to pray, according as his custom was to pray, bowing his knees an hundred times and prostrating himself upon his face. Judas, accordingly, knowing the place where Jesus was with his disciples, went to the high priest, and said: "If you will give me what was promised, this night will I give into your hand Jesus whom you seek; for he is alone with eleven companions." The high priest answered: "How much do you seek?" Judas said, "Thirty pieces of gold."

Then straightway the high priest counted to him the money, and sent a Pharisee to the governor to fetch soldiers, and to Herod, and they gave a legion of them, because they feared the people; wherefore they took their arms, and with torches and lanterns upon staves went out of Jerusalem.

215: When the soldiers with Judas drew near to the place where Jesus was, Jesus heard the approach of many people, wherefore in fear he withdrew into the house. And the eleven were sleeping. Then God, seeing the danger of his servant, commanded Gabriel;, Michael;, Rafael;, and Uriel;, his ministers, to take Jesus out of the world. The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looks toward the South;. They bare him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore.

216: Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and answered: 'You, Lord, are our master; have you now forgotten us?'

And he, smiling, said: 'Now are you foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!' And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. We having heard Judas' saying, and seeing the multitude of soldiers, fled as beside ourselves. And John, who was wrapped in a linen cloth, awoke and fled, and when a soldier seized him by the linen cloth he left the linen cloth and fled naked. For God heard the prayer of Jesus, and saved the eleven from evil.

Kathryn · Apr 26, 2011

filthy tugboat said:
I suppose the problem is the definition of 'fully divine' but assuming humanity and divinity do not explicitly entail each other than it would seem that the use of the word 'fully' is faulty.

This concept of the Incarnation is not anything new or unusual:

Christology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incarnation (Christianity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For general uses, see Incarnation

The Incarnation shown as part of a cycle of life of Jesus with the Trinity in the central column, by Fridolin Leiber, 18th century.

The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that the second person in the Christian Godhead, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), "became flesh" when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary.
The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."[1]
In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with human nature[2] in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year at Christmas, and also reference can be made to the Feast of the Annunciation; "different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation" are celebrated at Christmas and the Annunciation.[3]
This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians. Alternative views on the subject (See Ebionites and the Gospel according to the Hebrews) have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected by mainstream Christian bodies.
In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "Oneness" has been espoused among various Pentecostal groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder of Christendom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)

Amazon.com: Fully Human, Fully Divine: An Interactive Christology (9780764811494): Michael Casey: Books

Hope this helps.

filthy tugboat · Apr 27, 2011

Kathryn said:
This concept of the Incarnation is not anything new or unusual:

Christology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it isn't but I've never found the concept that Jesus was both 'fully man' and 'fully God' to be reasonable. The only way to logically arrive at that conclusion would be if Being 'fully God' entails the completeness of humanity in the same way that someone who is 'fully human' would be. So either being 'fully human' is a property of being 'fully God' or the term fully is not being used to describe 'the entirety' of something, in this case being.

Kathryn said:
The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that the second person in the Christian Godhead, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), "became flesh" when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary.
The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God.

I'm fine with this, being both man and God is logical given the situation, it's the use of the term 'fully' that gets me.

Kathryn said:
In the Bible its clearest teaching is in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."[1]
In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with human nature[2] in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man".

So the 'fully man' nature was joined but not mixed with the 'fully divine' nature? How is this possible? What does it mean? How does it relate to the nature of Jesus? Is it only possible as a property of a 'fully divine' nature or can it happen outside of that property? If not, why suggest he is 'fully man' and 'fully divine' when 'fully divine' would suffice for the answer?

Kathryn said:
The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year at Christmas, and also reference can be made to the Feast of the Annunciation; "different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation" are celebrated at Christmas and the Annunciation.[3]
This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians. Alternative views on the subject (See Ebionites and the Gospel according to the Hebrews) have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected by mainstream Christian bodies.
In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "Oneness" has been espoused among various Pentecostal groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder of Christendom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)

Amazon.com: Fully Human, Fully Divine: An Interactive Christology (9780764811494): Michael Casey: Books

Hope this helps.

Thanks, it very well may have if I can squeeze out some more answers ;D

7he4uthor · Apr 27, 2011

esmith said:
In Matt 20:17-19 and Mark 10:32-34 Jesus says that he will be mocked and flogged and crucified. Yet when the time comes, Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34, he asks God why he has forsaken him. What is this, a oops moment? Did he finally realize that he got what he was asking for, but thought that God would intercede for him?

the story is false
it was devised by a group to comquer rome
and it worked

read more kaballah/witchcraft/bankers

Question on the death of Jesus

Luminous

non-existential luminary

sniper762

Well-Known Member

horizon_mj1

Well-Known Member

sniper762

Well-Known Member

horizon_mj1

Well-Known Member

sniper762

Well-Known Member

horizon_mj1

Well-Known Member

Luminous

non-existential luminary

sniper762

Well-Known Member

Luminous

non-existential luminary

filthy tugboat

Active Member

Plato

Member

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member

esmith

Veteran Member

esmith

Veteran Member

muzu

Glory be to Allah

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.

filthy tugboat

Active Member

7he4uthor

Member