There ain't no Jesus here.

rosends said:

I don't see anywhere in Psalm 22 where dust of death refers to all the people. The wars, oppression and exile certainly resulted in the crushing death of many people and the loss of national identity of the nation. I do see in verse 17 a direct reference to Isaiah which makes the image precisely about Israel; I hope you see that.

Click to expand...

I do. And I would happily concede that Jesus' life has comparisons with Israel. In which case, it could be argued that Psalm 22 has a meaning at both individual and national level. But you cannot simple ignore the perfect and precise depiction of the events of Jesus' crucifixion in this psalm. Have you read the NT?

rosends said:

Oh, so Jesus wasn't holy. Got it.

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'
Isaiah 53:6. 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.'

According to Exodus 12:3 the lamb is to be without blemish. That's just the way Jesus was, yet he bore the sins of many. Hebrews 9:28 'So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.'

This is a hard thing to be certain about, but since the soul of Jesus was without sin, he must have born the sin in his body. That's why the death of his body was necessary in the expiation of sin. The spirit of God departed from Jesus when the sin was born in his body (ie in crucifixion, or punishment upon a tree).

Redemptionsong said:

I do. And I would happily concede that Jesus' life has comparisons with Israel. In which case, it could be argued that Psalm 22 has a meaning at both individual and national level. But you cannot simple ignore the perfect and precise depiction of the events of Jesus' crucifixion in this psalm. Have you read the NT?

Click to expand...

I have read the gospels and other isolated books but not all (a bunch of Romans, and some other pieces). So now your position is that this has meaning on a national level, and then later, someone wrote a text which depicted an individual whose life seems to parallel that of the preexisting national statements? I mean, the depiction is neither perfect nor precise but works for you as a matter of interpretation. No crucifixion is mentioned, by the way.

Redemptionsong said:

2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'
Isaiah 53:6. 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.'

According to Exodus 12:3 the lamb is to be without blemish. That's just the way Jesus was, yet he bore the sins of many. Hebrews 9:28 'So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.'

This is a hard thing to be certain about, but since the soul of Jesus was without sin, he must have born the sin in his body. That's why the death of his body was necessary in the expiation of sin. The spirit of God departed from Jesus when the sin was born in his body (ie in crucifixion, or punishment upon a tree).

Click to expand...

OK, so your position is that he wasn't holy, but though his soul was without sin, he had a blemish (which a sacrifice can't have) after having been scourged. The death of his body was necessary but his soul was the one that cried out (verse 21). And he was punished after he took other people's sins on himself (which isn't acceptable under Jewish law) and the spirit of God (whatever that is) "departed" from him because sin was somehow "born" in his body, even though the sin belonged to other people and already existed. So the sin was born again I guess. Works perfectly. Bravo.

rosends said:

No crucifixion is mentioned, by the way.
OK, so your position is that he wasn't holy, but though his soul was without sin, he had a blemish (which a sacrifice can't have) after having been scourged. The death of his body was necessary but his soul was the one that cried out (verse 21). And he was punished after he took other people's sins on himself (which isn't acceptable under Jewish law) and the spirit of God (whatever that is) "departed" from him because sin was somehow "born" in his body, even though the sin belonged to other people and already existed. So the sin was born again I guess. Works perfectly. Bravo.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty to make comments.
Romans did do mass executions, didn't they ?______

According to Christian Scripture Jesus was holy ( No blemish from sin ) - Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 9:21-23; Hebrews 9:24-26; Hebrews 10:8-10
It wasn't the corrupted religious leaders directly executing Jesus, rather they got the political to do their dirty work. So, scourging was from the political Not the religious way.

No, Jesus was Not punished afterwards. That is a religious-myth teaching that is just taught as being Scripture but is Not Scripture.
Jesus taught sleep in death - John 11:11-14 - Not punishment.
So, while in ' biblical hell ' (grave) - Acts of the Apostles 2:27 - Jesus would have been in a sleep-like state.
An unconscious sleep-like condition -> Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5
Didn't Daniel also liken death to sleep ? ________- Daniel 12:2;Daniel 12:13
Even the word cemetery means: sleeping place Not punishing place. (R.I.P.) - Romans 6:7

Notice the power the spirit of God has according to Psalms 104:30.
So, the spirit of God ' departing ' - Matthew 27:46; Psalms 22:1 was a momentary departing or withdrawing of God's power.
That was showing that No one could say that God was helping him or comforting him, but that Jesus was laying down his life out of his own free-will choice for us.
Jesus was momentarily abandoned into the hands of his enemies.

Redemptionsong said:

It's true that Jesus died. This fact is itself a stumblingstone for Muslims. Jesus' death was a necessary fulfilment of law and prophecy. Let's not forget that whilst hanging on the cross, Jesus managed to utter the first words of Psalm 22, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? What more graphic account can one have of the inner struggles of a man being crucified? Here are some of the words of that Psalm:
'But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and roaring lion.
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
I may tell all my bones: they look upon me.
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.' (KJV)
How is this passage explained away?

Click to expand...

I'm unsure about what is meant about 'how is this passage explained away' ?

Psalms 22 starts from despair then to praise
They cast lots for his clothing Psalms 22:18
Praising God in the congregation - Psalms 22:22; Psalms 22:25
The whole earth to worship God - Psalms 22:27 ; Psalms 22:30-31

Tumah said:

The other way around. The word "mashiach" comes from the root word "mashach". Anyone who is anointed is called "mashiach". As in Lev. 4:5 "and the kohen ha-mashiach (anointed priest) shall take".

Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I have another question:

Matthew 19:24 was to have translated his gospel account into Greek, but originally it was written in Hebrew.
How similar is the Hebrew word for ' rope ' and the Hebrew word for ' camel ' ?
Could copyists have missed a word like ' rope ' because it is close in appearance to camel ?

I have heard it said in the Greek the words ' cable ' and ' camel ' are close in appearance and easy to miss translate.

URAVIP2ME said:

If you don't mind, I have another question:

Matthew 19:24 was to have translated his gospel account into Greek, but originally it was written in Hebrew.
How similar is the Hebrew word for ' rope ' and the Hebrew word for ' camel ' ?
Could copyists have missed a word like ' rope ' because it is close in appearance to camel ?

I have heard it said in the Greek the words ' cable ' and ' camel ' are close in appearance and easy to miss translate.

Click to expand...

To me being familiar with the letters, they look quite different and there are two out of the three letters that are different.
גמל - camel
חבל - rope
And in Pale-Hebrew (used until 135 CE) they look even more different
- camel
- rope

URAVIP2ME said:

I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty to make comments.
Romans did do mass executions, didn't they ?______

Click to expand...

I have no particular idea but I have no reason to think they didn't. any Jews were killed by Romans.

URAVIP2ME said:

According to Christian Scripture Jesus was holy ( No blemish from sin ) - Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 9:21-23; Hebrews 9:24-26; Hebrews 10:8-10

Click to expand...

Yes. So? You are relying on the Jewish idea of blemish if you want to consider Jesus a sacrifice. Citing Christian scripture to endorse a Jewish scriptural idea isn't very persuasive.

URAVIP2ME said:

It wasn't the corrupted religious leaders directly executing Jesus, rather they got the political to do their dirty work. So, scourging was from the political Not the religious way.

Click to expand...

A blemish is a blemish, though.

URAVIP2ME said:

No, Jesus was Not punished afterwards. That is a religious-myth teaching that is just taught as being Scripture but is Not Scripture.
Jesus taught sleep in death - John 11:11-14 - Not punishment.

Click to expand...

So he was accursed (as an earlier post claimed), he held on to sins (which were deserving of punishment), he died FOR the sins of others, but the death wasn't that punishment. OK, then.

URAVIP2ME said:

Didn't Daniel also liken death to sleep ? ________- Daniel 12:2;Daniel 12:13

Click to expand...

Yes. So did Shakespeare in Hamlet. So?

URAVIP2ME said:

Even the word cemetery means: sleeping place Not punishing place. (R.I.P.) - Romans 6:7

Click to expand...

I see no point in arguing the etymology of an English word in a biblical discussion. If your claim is that death is not a punishment for sin they you and I have different views of the death penalty.

URAVIP2ME said:

Notice the power the spirit of God has according to Psalms 104:30.
So, the spirit of God ' departing ' - Matthew 27:46; Psalms 22:1 was a momentary departing or withdrawing of God's power.

Click to expand...

That is a reference to the power of God that created the world. You are claiming that that power was somehow inside of Jesus until it voluntarily withdrew. That makes no sense to me but believe what you want to.

URAVIP2ME said:

Jesus was momentarily abandoned into the hands of his enemies.

Click to expand...

I figured he had been abandoned the moment that he was arrested as God didn't save him from a trial, sentencing, scourging or execution. If your belief is that he was only abandoned at the last bit of his life, that's great for you. Illogical to me, but your religion doesn't have to make sense to me.

rosends said:

I have read the gospels and other isolated books but not all (a bunch of Romans, and some other pieces). So now your position is that this has meaning on a national level, and then later, someone wrote a text which depicted an individual whose life seems to parallel that of the preexisting national statements? I mean, the depiction is neither perfect nor precise but works for you as a matter of interpretation. No crucifixion is mentioned, by the way.

Click to expand...

The challenge is far greater than you imagine, because I understand from the New Testament that Jesus Christ is the Spirit or Word of God. This means that he is to be found through and within all the words of scripture.
When it comes to the crucifixion there is a direct connection with the sacrifices of old. In Leviticus 17:11 it states; 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.'
In like manner the blood of Jesus was poured out 'to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' (Hebrews 9:26)

The impact of your exegesis by disassociation, in my humble opinion, is to force Jews into an intellectual and religious prison. This is quite ironic, given the fact that the very person Christians hold dear is a Jew by birth, and the writings that illuminate Gentile understanding have been written by Jews.

Redemptionsong said:

The impact of your exegesis by disassociation, in my humble opinion, is to force Jews into an intellectual and religious prison.

Click to expand...

The prisons I worry about are the ghettos and camps that evolve in the wake of a parasitic theocratic movement misappropriating Jewish scripture.

Redemptionsong said:

The challenge is far greater than you imagine, because I understand from the New Testament that Jesus Christ is the Spirit or Word of God. This means that he is to be found through and within all the words of scripture.
When it comes to the crucifixion there is a direct connection with the sacrifices of old. In Leviticus 17:11 it states; 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.'
In like manner the blood of Jesus was poured out 'to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' (Hebrews 9:26)

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it isolates 17:11 as if it exists in some vacuum. It exists directly after the law which states that all sacrifices must be done in the temple. Jesus was not crucified in the temple, so the laws concerning sacrifices cannot be relevant. The discussion of blood comes right after the procedure for a feast offering with the burning of the fats and the blood's being thrown on the altar. Simply taking a phrase about blood and atonement and separating it from the text makes for illogical conclusions.

Redemptionsong said:

The impact of your exegesis by disassociation, in my humble opinion, is to force Jews into an intellectual and religious prison. This is quite ironic, given the fact that the very person Christians hold dear is a Jew by birth, and the writings that illuminate Gentile understanding have been written by Jews.

Click to expand...

What your method does, to my mind, is to force Christians to chase their own textual tails, cherry picking text which supports a conclusion they have already decided they must reach and therefore ignoring what the text says in deference to what they want the text to say. Sometimes one can be so open minded that one's brain falls out.

Tumah said:

Any Christians out there, ever tried reading the TaNaCH without reading Jesus into it?
Just reading what it says and taking it at face value without the lens of the NT?

I'd be interested to know how you fared and where you had no choice but to read Jesus there for lack of better explanation of the passage.

Click to expand...

I have never read the Tanach, with the purpose of finding Jesus in it.

SpeaksForTheTrees said:

The God of Christians , is not the same as Judaism . Jesus is Jewish but was sent by the christian god , Anu supreme ruler of heaven ,king of Gods , Lord of the constelations is God of christians . Jesus is manifestation of Ilabrat
Your God is stolen from the East , from nations pre sumarian .
The God of Christians , the trinity has far more in common with Hinduism & Braham & manifestations there of.
aka Allah

Click to expand...

Who is the G-d of Judaism?

rosends said:

The problem with this is that it isolates 17:11 as if it exists in some vacuum. It exists directly after the law which states that all sacrifices must be done in the temple. Jesus was not crucified in the temple, so the laws concerning sacrifices cannot be relevant. The discussion of blood comes right after the procedure for a feast offering with the burning of the fats and the blood's being thrown on the altar. Simply taking a phrase about blood and atonement and separating it from the text makes for illogical conclusions.

Click to expand...

You say that all sacrifices must be done in the temple, but Jesus made it quite clear that he had become the legitimate temple of God. That's why a great fuss was made when Jesus said 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The response of the Jews was, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?' 'But he spake of the temple of his body.' (John 2:19-21)
Now look back to what Malachi says in Malachi 3:1. 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare a way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.'

You might ask, when did the Lord come to his temple? I would answer by saying, at Jesus' baptism. But there are many, brought up in religious tradition, who would say at the birth of Jesus. Let me cite Galatians 4:4 ,'But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'

This important passage tells us that Jesus was made under the law, the Mosaic law. He was a human baby, miraculously conceived, but brought up under the law. It was not until he was about 30 years old that he received the Holy Spirit from on high. It was from this point onwards that he spoke prophetically and demonstrated the miraculous powers of God. The spirit in him was the spirit of God. In fact the scriptures say 'For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' (Colossians 2:9)

Let's not forget, Christians are told 'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.' (2 Timothy 2:15)

May I add one point. As a believer in Jesus as the Christ I do not consider myself a part of some new religion. Jesus never came to establish a new religion, and where Christian religion exists it does so through the weakness of the adherents in failing to walk by the spirit of God. Obligation, which is at the root of religion, takes over when the spirit no longer leads a person in love and truth.
Mosaic law was the only true religion, but even that fails to please God, owing to the sin of the people.

rosends said:

Well, as is explained to Daniel as the ones actually to inherit are written in the plural, you say it applies to one man? Wow.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind me dredging this up, but I never realised that the inheritors were a plural! This is quite exciting.
Daniel 7:13,14. KJV 'I saw in the night visions, and ,behold, one like the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'

If what you say is true, then the plural fits with what is written about the saints. Verse 22 says, 'Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.'

The teaching of the NT is that in Christ there is only one generation, as it says in Matthew,1:1 'the generation of Jesus Christ'. This is his spiritual body, the church proper.

Redemptionsong said:

You say that all sacrifices must be done in the temple, but Jesus made it quite clear that he had become the legitimate temple of God. That's why a great fuss was made when Jesus said 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The response of the Jews was, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?' 'But he spake of the temple of his body.' (John 2:19-21)

Click to expand...

Exactly: you just used the gospels to justify the gospels.

Redemptionsong said:

Now look back to what Malachi says in Malachi 3:1. 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare a way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.'

Click to expand...

And? In messianic days, the temple will be rebuilt. And, as verse 4 indicates, sacrifices will resume.

Redemptionsong said:

You might ask, when did the Lord come to his temple? I would answer by saying, at Jesus' baptism. But there are many, brought up in religious tradition, who would say at the birth of Jesus. Let me cite Galatians 4:4 ,'But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'

Click to expand...

And none of this is related to the text but is based in your belief in the gospels.

Redemptionsong said:

This important passage tells us that Jesus was made under the law, the Mosaic law. He was a human baby, miraculously conceived, but brought up under the law. It was not until he was about 30 years old that he received the Holy Spirit from on high. It was from this point onwards that he spoke prophetically and demonstrated the miraculous powers of God. The spirit in him was the spirit of God. In fact the scriptures say 'For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' (Colossians 2:9)

Let's not forget, Christians are told 'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.' (2 Timothy 2:15)

Click to expand...

Again, all of this is just your theological imperative sticking its nose in.

Redemptionsong said:

If what you say is true, then the plural fits with what is written about the saints. Verse 22 says, 'Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.'
.

Click to expand...

Or about the children of Israel. But not about Jesus.

rosends said:

Or about the children of Israel. But not about Jesus.

Click to expand...

''Jesus'', is from Israel.

q konn said:

''Jesus'', is from Israel.

Click to expand...

So is my grandmother. So?

Redemptionsong said:

The challenge is far greater than you imagine, because I understand from the New Testament that Jesus Christ is the Spirit or Word of God. This means that he is to be found through and within all the words of scripture.
When it comes to the crucifixion there is a direct connection with the sacrifices of old. In Leviticus 17:11 it states; 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.'
In like manner the blood of Jesus was poured out 'to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself' (Hebrews 9:26)

The impact of your exegesis by disassociation, in my humble opinion, is to force Jews into an intellectual and religious prison. This is quite ironic, given the fact that the very person Christians hold dear is a Jew by birth, and the writings that illuminate Gentile understanding have been written by Jews.

Click to expand...

Is your explanation here of Lev. 17:11 what you believe the verse is saying in context?