Isaiah says God will kill Jesus?

[freelight]

Only by the blood of Jesus can anyone receive those rewards. Only he is worthy. We have to trust in unearned favor of God.

Actually, real 'repentance' is what changes a person and brings transformation of one's life,...not the magical belief in the blood of any person, or a vicarious atonement concept necessarily. Such a belief may have its effect, but that enters into the more vague realm of 'faith' and subjective interpretation. You are responsible for your own sins and salvation with God's help of course. - even as Paul says, it is the renewing of your mind that transforms your life and conduct, so you can bear the fruit of Spirit, as you walk in the Spirit. - The blood atonement theory is more or less debatable as its place and efficacy, as different atonement-theories are out there. - the penal substitutionary atonement theory has many problems, its abrogation of self-responsibility being just one of them. (it still holds that whatever one sows, that one reaps, the universal law of karma maintains, as long as cause/effect exists...as the law of forgiveness also absolves sin).

Despite fanciful allegorical interpretations of Isaiah 53 referring to Jesus, the traditional Jewish interpretation in proper context seems more likely that the suffering servant is 'Israel', and even if it could be symbolically applied to also the Messiah himself, this in no way proves it was the man 'Jesus' being referred to as it doesnt totally fit to Jesus on different levels. Retro-grading christian concepts/beliefs back into Jewish scripture and finding messianic prophecies and assigning Jesus to those, does not necessarily make them true as anything else. Religous beliefs are noted, and individual freedoms respected,....I'd keep questioning, and researching before assuming any one belief, idea or concept as being 'absolute'. All viewpoints, assumptions and beliefs even, are subject to change. I enjoy being free of beliefs at this point, but exploring and researching various points of view of a given subject, always open to see more dimensions or insights.


~*~*~

 

[Brian2]

Actually, real 'repentance' is what changes a person and brings transformation of one's life,...not the magical belief in the blood of any person, or a vicarious atonement concept necessarily. Such a belief may have its effect, but that enters into the more vague realm of 'faith' and subjective interpretation. You are responsible for your own sins and salvation with God's help of course. - even as Paul says, it is the renewing of your mind that transforms your life and conduct, so you can bear the fruit of Spirit, as you walk in the Spirit. - The blood atonement theory is more or less debatable as its place and efficacy, as different atonement-theories are out there. - the penal substitutionary atonement theory has many problems, its abrogation of self-responsibility being just one of them. (it still holds that whatever one sows, that one reaps, the universal law of karma maintains, as long as cause/effect exists...as the law of forgiveness also absolves sin).

Despite fanciful allegorical interpretations of Isaiah 53 referring to Jesus, the traditional Jewish interpretation in proper context seems more likely that the suffering servant is 'Israel', and even if it could be symbolically applied to also the Messiah himself, this in no way proves it was the man 'Jesus' being referred to as it doesnt totally fit to Jesus on different levels. Retro-grading christian concepts/beliefs back into Jewish scripture and finding messianic prophecies and assigning Jesus to those, does not necessarily make them true as anything else. Religous beliefs are noted, and individual freedoms respected,....I'd keep questioning, and researching before assuming any one belief, idea or concept as being 'absolute'. All viewpoints, assumptions and beliefs even, are subject to change. I enjoy being free of beliefs at this point, but exploring and researching various points of view of a given subject, always open to see more dimensions or insights.


~*~*~

Repentance is part of the gospel message. That involves seeing that we are responsible for our sins and are guilty for them.
Achieving our own salvation through our own efforts, even with God's help, is not an option, since we all sin and fall short of the glory of God.
The wages of sin is death and we cannot die for our sins and also live on in forgiveness as if we have not sinned.
What is the law of forgiveness that you speak of?
No matter which way we look at it, there are allegorical interpretations of Isaiah 53. The Christian one is not the only allegorical one. The suffering servant can be Israel imo and also can be Israel through the person of Jesus, who is an Israelite.
Israel as a nation does not fit Isa 53 but Jesus does imo.
If the gospel is to be believed then Jesus did die an atoning death as Isa 53 tells us would happen, and rose from the dead as Isa 53 tells us would happen.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ The "rising from the dead" by Jesus does not imply, imho, that he was born again to partake of physical life, but rather manifested himself to show the disciples that he was now born again, this time of the spirit of the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Brian2]

^ The "rising from the dead" by Jesus does not imply, imho, that he was born again to partake of physical life, but rather manifested himself to show the disciples that he was now born again, this time of the spirit of the Kingdom of Heaven.

His physical body was raised to life and transformed to an immortal body. We don't know much about the body but it was suitable for earthly life and also life in heaven or anywhere it seems.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

His physical body was raised to life and transformed to an immortal body. We don't know much about the body but it was suitable for earthly life and also life in heaven or anywhere it seems.

Perhaps. That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit, unless one is born of the spirit.....

 

[Brian2]

Perhaps. That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit, unless one is born of the spirit.....

We can be born of spirit while we are still alive physically.
"That which is born of the spirit is spirit", means imo that our spirit is born of the spirit.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We can be born of spirit while we are still alive physically.
"That which is born of the spirit is spirit", means imo that our spirit is born of the spirit.

True, there is no other way sfaik.
Imho, the source of man is spirit, but the body is physical, to be born of the spirit means that we now have a spiritual body, and when the physical one dissolves into the atoms of which it is constituted, aka physical death, we live on as a spiritual Heavenly being.

Know ye not that your body is a temple of the living God?

 

[Brian2]

True, there is no other way sfaik.
Imho, the source of man is spirit, but the body is physical, to be born of the spirit means that we now have a spiritual body, and when the physical one dissolves into the atoms of which it is constituted, aka physical death, we live on as a spiritual Heavenly being.

Know ye not that your body is a temple of the living God?

Our body is a temple of the living God when we receive the Holy Spirit and God thus dwells in us.
If I am born again now and have the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that I have 2 bodies now, a physical and a spiritual.
Our inner spirit is not a body and we are incomplete without a body, we would be naked and are clothed with our new body at the resurrection.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Our body is a temple of the living God when we receive the Holy Spirit and God thus dwells in us.
If I am born again now and have the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that I have 2 bodies now, a physical and a spiritual.
Our inner spirit is not a body and is complete without a body, we would be naked and are clothed with our new body at the resurrection.

Ok. I will not debate the issue as it is presently beyond my ken, but I appreciate your position.

 

[Brian2]

Ok. I will not debate the issue as it is presently beyond my ken, but I appreciate your position.

I made a mistake in what I wanted to say in post #288
which I have correted.
I meant to say that we are incomplete without a body.

 

[Colt]

Repentance is part of the gospel message. That involves seeing that we are responsible for our sins and are guilty for them.
Achieving our own salvation through our own efforts, even with God's help, is not an option, since we all sin and fall short of the glory of God.
The wages of sin is death and we cannot die for our sins and also live on in forgiveness as if we have not sinned.
What is the law of forgiveness that you speak of?
No matter which way we look at it, there are allegorical interpretations of Isaiah 53. The Christian one is not the only allegorical one. The suffering servant can be Israel imo and also can be Israel through the person of Jesus, who is an Israelite.
Israel as a nation does not fit Isa 53 but Jesus does imo.
If the gospel is to be believed then Jesus did die an atoning death as Isa 53 tells us would happen, and rose from the dead as Isa 53 tells us would happen.

God has always been a forgiving Father. One only needs to accept Gods forgiveness and return to loyalty to deity if they have been disloyal.

The atonement doctrine developed after Jesus left among sacrifice mined Jews and Gentiles. It made sense to them as something for nothing was too difficult to believe.

 

[Muffled]

No. You are basing this on an erroneous Christian misinterpretation of Isaiah 53.

I believe we are not the ones in error. It seems certain people must bend over backwards to deny what the text actually says.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you for identifying the obvious! Jesus was kind of a suicide like Samson when you think about it!

I believe suicide is when one kills oneself. Jesus was executed by the Romans on a cross.

 

[Muffled]

The error is based on the belief that blood sacrifice was part of the plan. It wasn't.

Matthew 9​
13	But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Hosea 6​
6	For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.

Real nice to ignore this one:
Matt 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Ebionite]

Real nice to ignore this one:
Matt 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Matthew 26:26-29

The fruit of the vine is descriptive of the wine of a passover seder. Wine is associated with the transgression of the proud man:

Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:5

https://dev.clonehost.net/torah-d1/pages/twin.html#s13

 

[Brian2]

God has always been a forgiving Father. One only needs to accept Gods forgiveness and return to loyalty to deity if they have been disloyal.

The atonement doctrine developed after Jesus left among sacrifice mined Jews and Gentiles. It made sense to them as something for nothing was too difficult to believe.

Nevertheless, the atoning death of Jesus was something that Jesus had been sent to accomplish.
The atonement by Jesus is something for nothing, if you count our faith as nothing.

 

[John D. Brey]

You are responsible for your own sins and salvation

Freelight 3:16? From the Hamasnabi scrolls?




John

 

[freelight]

Freelight 3:16? From the Hamasnabi scrolls?




John

John 3:16 does not abrogate the principle of self-responsibility for your own thoughts, deeds and actions. The universal law of karma and free will....continue as long as any actions take place, as long as you remain a sentient being in any realm of conditional existence....there are cause/effect relationships. Are you not repsonible for your own actions recognizing that those actions (karma) have their 'effects'? - likewise, thru the same god-given powers of free will choice, you can be 'saved', come back into unity with 'God' ....and so on....and thereby experience the 'effects of those causitive actions. What a man sows, that also shall he reap, - our thoughts, words and deeds have even more wide reaching effects than we may be cognizant of across many time-lines,....many factors go into the currents of our individual lives and in the cosmos as well. My use of the word 'karma' simply refers to 'actions and their corresponding effects'.

Secondly, the idea of 'blood-atonement' beyond any occult understanding of the significance of 'blood' as a symbol of 'soul-life' is primitive if not obsolete beyond the power of ones own 'belief', while the thought of a loving God demanding blood-sacrafice or the death of an innocent to somehow pardon another is repugnant, illogical and insane. All souls are loved and saved by 'grace', for such is by God's provision naturally. - we would question the religious schemes and 'means' assumed by a particular theology however that is actually 'ungodly'.

'God' who is love already loves and forgives by his own nature as a loving Universal Father-Mother-God, so every opportunity is given to any soul that can respond to love, to repent and re-turn to 'God' at any moment, by the right path of repentance and reunion with Source. Hence the call of the prophets of most all religions is to 'repent' (change the mind/consciousness) by rejoining to Spirit, the return to love and the divine will which is LIFE itself. Love itself is the atonement, it absolves all, - those living by its law are abiding in the kingdom of heaven.

The murder of Jesus within a prescribed prophetic context that has some kind of redemptive effect will be according to the imagination assumed in such a 'transaction' if any,.....a subjective interpretation. What a soul does with whatever knowledge or principle received may have its own effects to transform the soul, so it will vary per individual. I reject the idea that 'God' planned to kill Jesus as the OP-title describes, but that divine love will sacrifice itself at any cost within any given situation where free will creatures may be able to resist or reject such love. Love is for-giving....by nature, and its eternal will is unchanging, so its reach and power must be by nature just as infinite.


~*~*~

 

[John D. Brey]

John 3:16 does not abrogate the principle of self-responsibility for your own thoughts, deeds and actions. The universal law of karma and free will....continue as long as any actions take place, as long as you remain a sentient being in any realm of conditional existence....there are cause/effect relationships. Are you not repsonible for your own actions recognizing that those actions (karma) have their 'effects'? - likewise, thru the same god-given powers of free will choice, you can be 'saved', come back into unity with 'God' ....and so on....and thereby experience the 'effects of those causitive actions. What a man sows, that also shall he reap, - our thoughts, words and deeds have even more wide reaching effects than we may be cognizant of across many time-lines,....many factors go into the currents of our individual lives and in the cosmos as well. My use of the word 'karma' simply refers to 'actions and their corresponding effects'.

Secondly, the idea of 'blood-atonement' beyond any occult understanding of the significance of 'blood' as a symbol of 'soul-life' is primitive if not obsolete beyond the power of ones own 'belief', while the thought of a loving God demanding blood-sacrafice or the death of an innocent to somehow pardon another is repugnant, illogical and insane. All souls are loved and saved by 'grace', for such is by God's provision naturally. - we would question the religious schemes and 'means' assumed by a particular theology however that is actually 'ungodly'.

'God' who is love already loves and forgives by his own nature as a loving Universal Father-Mother-God, so every opportunity is given to any soul that can respond to love, to repent and re-turn to 'God' at any moment, by the right path of repentance and reunion with Source. Hence the call of the prophets of most all religions is to 'repent' (change the mind/consciousness) by rejoining to Spirit, the return to love and the divine will which is LIFE itself. Love itself is the atonement, it absolves all, - those living by its law are abiding in the kingdom of heaven.

The murder of Jesus within a prescribed prophetic context that has some kind of redemptive effect will be according to the imagination assumed in such a 'transaction' if any,.....a subjective interpretation. What a soul does with whatever knowledge or principle received may have its own effects to transform the soul, so it will vary per individual. I reject the idea that 'God' planned to kill Jesus as the OP-title describes, but that divine love will sacrifice itself at any cost within any given situation where free will creatures may be able to resist or reject such love. Love is for-giving....by nature, and its eternal will is unchanging, so its reach and power must be by nature just as infinite.


~*~*~

I agree with most or all of this within a naturalistic sense of the way things are ---eternally ---up until the point of the crucifixion and resurrection. Karma is real. Most of the things you note are factual. Up to a point. The crucifixion and resurrection.

Which is why I've quoted Nietzsche as the foundation for the thread The Metaphysics of Disbelief. Nietzche is the perfect bacterium in a Petri dish. His father was a Lutheran minister while he was an avowed atheist with leanings toward Buddhism and an epistemological bent much like your own.

Notwithstanding his brilliance and the correctness of so much of his philosophy and logic (ala your statements above), he had one inborn insight that gnawed at him unmercifully throughout his life. He understood the basics of what his father had taught about the crucifixion and resurrection such that for the whole of his life he was haunted by a possibility, even a reasonably likelihood, that the Christian idea of the crucifixion and resurrection transcends and makes nothing of the natural and eternal nature of things like karma, yin and yang, and most importantly the power of logic and reason based on the natural kind of observations that come from the binary nature of our biological means of perception.

In his immense brilliance, Nietzsche intuited something almost no one else seems to grasp; he grasped a part of the Christian message few know anything about. With his last gasping breaths he warned the world, warned thinkers like you, to declare war on Christianity. Don't fear it as you fear other silly ideas. Don't even think of it in terms of karma, yin and yang, or natural, logical thought. He knew better. Christian thought, though few Christians know it, rings the death-knell for nature, natural thought, karma, humanism and moral righteousness, all the good things and good works that are a part of the natural, binary, even eternal, nature of things. Up until the crucifixion and resurrection.

Ironically, the Christian, Soren Kierkegaard, who died about the time Nietzsche was ten, stated the facts much like the atheist Nietzsche. Kierkegaard said that if people really understood Christianity, they would fear it, hate it, despise it. And for the same reason noted by Nietzsche: Christianity doesn't play well with others. And that's an understatement. Christianity implies the crucifixion and resurrection are not only the soul purpose for the creation of the world, but that part and parcel of that purpose is the utter and total subjection of eternity and the world to a new order impossible without the crucifixion and resurrection, but which, after the crucifixion and resurrection, makes everything and one a mere footnote to the resurrected Christ and his Body.



John

 

[freelight]

I agree with most or all of this within a naturalistic sense of the way things are ---eternally ---up until the point of the crucifixion and resurrection. Karma is real. Most of the things you note are factual. Up to a point. The crucifixion and resurrection.

Which is why I've quoted Nietzsche as the foundation for the thread The Metaphysics of Disbelief. Nietzche is the perfect bacterium in a Petri dish. His father was a Lutheran minister while he was an avowed atheist with leanings toward Buddhism and an epistemological bent much like your own.

Notwithstanding his brilliance and the correctness of so much of his philosophy and logic (ala your statements above), he had one inborn insight that gnawed at him unmercifully throughout his life. He understood the basics of what his father had taught about the crucifixion and resurrection such that for the whole of his life he was haunted by a possibility, even a reasonably likelihood, that the Christian idea of the crucifixion and resurrection transcends and makes nothing of the natural and eternal nature of things like karma, yin and yang, and most importantly the power of logic and reason based on the natural kind of observations that come from the binary nature of our biological means of perception.

In his immense brilliance, Nietzsche intuited something almost no one else seems to grasp; he grasped a part of the Christian message few know anything about. With his last gasping breaths he warned the world, warned thinkers like you, to declare war on Christianity. Don't fear it as you fear other silly ideas. Don't even think of it in terms of karma, yin and yang, or natural, logical thought. He knew better. Christian thought, though few Christians know it, rings the death-knell for nature, natural thought, karma, humanism and moral righteousness, all the good things and good works that are a part of the natural, binary, even eternal, nature of things. Up until the crucifixion and resurrection.

Ironically, the Christian, Soren Kierkegaard, who died about the time Nietzsche was ten, stated the facts much like the atheist Nietzsche. Kierkegaard said that if people really understood Christianity, they would fear it, hate it, despise it. And for the same reason noted by Nietzsche: Christianity doesn't play well with others. And that's an understatement. Christianity implies the crucifixion and resurrection are not only the soul purpose for the creation of the world, but that part and parcel of that purpose is the utter and total subjection of eternity and the world to a new order impossible without the crucifixion and resurrection, but which, after the crucifixion and resurrection, makes everything and one a mere footnote to the resurrected Christ and his Body.



John

Hello John,

Interestingly, Ive not read alot of Nietzsche or Kierkgaard, but some have said some of my philosophical musings are similar, but I'd have to dive deeper and see any correlaries I probably wing it more than them lol.

I dont know if the crucifixion and resurrection is anything especially significant beyond what religious custom and culture has made it, by the way we measure anything, as a historical point in humanity of some import, by which we also order our calendars. Faith and theology has its own investment in it of course, however thats 'interpreted'.......indulge your meanings and values accordingly.

On a universal level anyways, most of the esoteric schools and mystics find ultimate value in the 'divine spark' within, the 'Christ in you'.....as man is God's temple, so our 'soul' is the dwelling place of all that is natural and divine (synergy),....its a combo-pack and more, as we stretch to infinity - Man is the microcosm, 'God' is the macrocosm.

Blood-atonement to me is barbaric, primitive and just gross, - one would think in a new age of Spirit, intelligence and technology, we'd have gone way beyond such archaric rituals and superstitions. - you can play with symbolic language of the terms, but the actual practice seems retard and not inspire the soul's ascension, but what do I know

As for a resurrection indicated in Is. 53, I dont see one, and the debate is still out whether this chapter speaks of Jesus in any fashion, even partly if you wanna splice and dice the context-application of who is being spoken of, while the clear context of chap. 53 and the whole book of Isaiah itself shows the Suffering Servant to be Israel, as God's Son, which refers to the entire nation collectively which would also include the Messiah of course (who is one with Isreal), but any particular passage which christians use to apply to Jesus must be interpreted in its proper context. - in this case Jesus just doesnt fit if most the cons against him outweigh the pros, but 'fancy figuring' and apologetics can put their own 'spin' on things

Just for fun -

~*~*~