We'll see ─ and perhaps I'll agree with you. Stay tuned ...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe that Jesus is the Word?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
-
- Tags
- the word
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Instead of trying to put words in the mouth of Jesus, Christianity is to reform itself with what Jesus said and acted, please.
Regards
There's a fair bit of torture porn in the gospels. Jesus doesn't seem above revelling in human suffering and death.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Jesus was teaching to the adherents. Not just saying random things. Jesus knew that He would be resurrected. The sacrifice is literal in a spiritual sense, and not literal, in the sense of say other temple sacrifices. A actual sacrifice like a temple sacrifice, would not be allowed in this instance to have any meaning, as it goes against the religious beliefs.
For himself (not 'revelling' in it, just endured it). But he never caused others pain (except maybe their conscience), physical pain....he relieved the suffering of others.
Some of his sermons in the Gospel male promises of future pain and revel in that. Whether you think Jesus will be the one to cause that promised pain depends on whether you think Jesus is God.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
A actual sacrifice of that manner is not allowed in the belief. Therefore it does not mean contextually, anything that would correlate, to that idea.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Whatever you think it means, it certainly was not literal.
Jesus went, Himself, to the crucifixion. The resurrection occured 3 days later.
Where did the father forsake Jesus?
It doesn't make sense, according to Jesus's own words, as a literal statement.
Matthew 26:53-54
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Of course not. That would be too difficult to explain. Instead you simply choose to consider it,. . . . . what? Metaphorical? Allegorical? Analogical? Symbolic? An allusion?
I haven't the faintest. All I know is that Jesus implied god had forsaken when he asked "why have you forsaken me?”
Gotta tell you something, there's a lot of things in the Bible that don't make sense, which is why I'm curious about Jesus' "forsaken" remark.
.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Personally, I believe you can interpret it in different ways. Perhaps Jesus was actually referring to a person named Eli, and admonishing him for lack of faith, or what not.
What we do know, is that it makes no sense as a literalism, since Jesus went to His own crucifixion, and had said earlier that He would be resurrected in 3 days.
So, at no point , on the cross, would Jesus have actually thought that the father had forsaken. Makes no sense.
Or something else. Many believe it's a singing phrase, a song or hymn.
It would be a bit odd to match your statement to known phrase. So, choose what you want it to mean, knowing what it wouldn't mean.
And in the book of Luke,
Luke 23:46
Jesus said something else. Jesus clearly said more than one thing, on the cross, and via comparison, and context, it is quite obvious that Jesus did not say that phrase in a literal sense, referring to the father.
That would not only contradict Scripture, the other verses, it makes no sense, religiously.
.And in Luke,
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You need to know a theory, before arguing it.
You're also having trouble just generally staying on topic and not saying random things in your posts, that just confuse the arguments.etc
So explain the Trinity to me. You said you knew, did you not? Is it three faces of the one being, is it three gods with one vote each, is each member one third of god, or does 1+1+1=1?
And explain where you got Eesu from.
And how 'Jesus' comes to mean 'God among us'.
(If you don't know, please just say so.)
Shadow Link
Active Member
Allegorically, when looking at the trinity, supreme intelligence(attributed God) abandoned Truth(the son) to suffer for the future of Gods sake --- hence the Bible story in and of itself.
Truth(Jesus) died for sin(ignorance) in the sense that Jesus taught others to bring them out of the state of sin(ignorance). This rationale deriving however from a blameless account of the life of Jesus leaving no justification for His accusers other than their own folly. And something His accusers could not even conceive at that time — the power of perfectly executed martyrdom.
Truth(Jesus) died for sin(ignorance) in the sense that Jesus taught others to bring them out of the state of sin(ignorance). This rationale deriving however from a blameless account of the life of Jesus leaving no justification for His accusers other than their own folly. And something His accusers could not even conceive at that time — the power of perfectly executed martyrdom.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I already told you, Eesu, Yesu, Yeshu, Jesus, Iesous, are all the same name, variance of each other.
'His name shall be Immanuel',
Meaning God with us,
'They named Him Jesus',
And that means generally JHVH with us.
That's the argument I presented.
You didn't refute it, you presented the name Jesus from Yeshua Joshua/Yoheshuah theory, which however much you believe to be true, or the actual name of Jesus, is still a theory.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
If Jesus died on the Cross and he prayed from G-d to be saved life then it is irrational to name him Immanuel .Please
Regards
Shadow Link
Active Member
“God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” Genesis 22:8.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Trinity is inferred in the Bible. I already explained, that I believe it is a deific notation, and basically denotes persons in the singular plurality. So that is my answer, to that.
Last edited:
But where did you get Eesu from? I can find no record of it as a version of the name Jesus.
Yes, but Jesus was NOT named Immanuel. One reason for that is that you're quoting the Tanakh, which was completed centuries before (if there was a Jesus at all) there was a Jesus. Another is that Isaiah's suffering servant is the nation of Israel, not a human.
No, it doesn't. EITHER 'Jesus' is from Hebrew Yehoshua meaning 'God is salvation', as the scholars tell us. OR 'Jesus' has no known etymology, which follows from what you've said. To pretend 'Jesus' doesn't mean 'God is salvation' doesn't allow you to claim that it means 'God among us', for which you offer no basis in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or anything else but that hardworking whim of yours.
And since you keep not replying to the Trinity question, it seems either you don't know after saying you did, or you think the church has got it right after all to call it a 'mystery in the strict sense' ie a nonsense, but you don't want to agree with that because then you'd be admitting I was right.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I did answer the trinity question, actually. And what I answered is hardly a mystery. The strict distinction in the persons is wrong, you either get that, or you don't. Or, you don't know what God means, Biblically, in it's more than one usage.